United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS
(in chambers): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
REMAND [Docket No. 24] AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 25]
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Katrina Biggers'
Motion to Remand filed on September 18, 2019 (“Motion
to Remand”) and Defendant Stater Bros. Markets'
(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss filed on
September 24, 2019 (“Motion to Dismiss”).
Defendant opposed the Motion to Remand on October 7, 2019
(“Remand Opposition”), to which Plaintiff replied
("Remand Reply") on October 11, 2019. Plaintiff
opposed the Motion to Dismiss on October 4, 2019, to which
Defendant replied on October 11, 2019. The Court found this
matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and
vacated the hearings set for October 28, 2019. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons stated below, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and DENIES Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss as moot.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Procedural Background
On May
7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a putative wage and hour class
action in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Bernardino, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees against Defendant, a California
corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June
13, 2019, Defendant removed the case to this Court on the
grounds that Plaintiff's claims were preempted by Section
301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act
(“Section 301” or “LMRA”), which
gives federal courts the exclusive jurisdiction to hear suits
for violations of contracts between employers and labor
organizations pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). (ECF No.
1.) On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 12.)
On July
22, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss and/or strike the FAC
based on LMRA preemption and because the FAC failed to state
a claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (See
generally ECF No. 15.) On August 27, 2019, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding
that Plaintiff's claims were not preempted by the LMRA,
and they were not sufficiently specific to state a claim for
relief under Rule 12(b)(6). (See ECF No.
21.) The Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days to file
an amended complaint. (Id. at 7.)
On
September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”).[1] (ECF No. 23.) In her Motion to
Remand, Plaintiff seeks to remand the action to the San
Bernardino Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because her causes of action are not preempted
by the LMRA and there is no other basis for federal
jurisdiction. (Mot. Remand 7, ECF No. 24.)
On
September 18, 2019, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 24.)
B.
Factual Background
The SAC
alleges the following. Plaintiff has been employed by
Defendant since on or about May 7, 2007. (SAC ¶ 7, ECF
No. 23.) Throughout Plaintiff's employment with
Defendant, she has been a non-exempt, hourly employee.
(Id.) Defendant is a California corporation that
maintains operations in California, including stores in San
Bernardino, California. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff
seeks to represent the following classes:
(1) All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant
in the State of California who were paid overtime wages at
any time between September 7, 2018, through the present (the
“OT Wage Statement Class”); and
(2) All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant
in the State of California who were paid night premium wages
at any time between September 7, 2018, through the present
(the “Night Premium Wage Statement Class”).
(Id. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff
alleges that she, the OT Wage Class, and the Night Premium
Wage Statement Class were paid on an hourly basis, and that
the wage statements provided to them should have reflected
all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period
and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly
rate, as well as the total hours they worked. (Id.
¶ 29.) However, the wage statements they received failed
to accurately identify such information. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges two specific instances in or around March
2019 where the wage statements she received were inaccurate:
the first as to the rate of pay she received, and the second
as to the total hours she worked. (Id.)
Plaintiff
also alleges that on or about April 23, 2019, she sent
written notice to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency (“LWDA”) of Defendant's
alleged violations of California Labor Code § 226(a),
pursuant to California Labor Code § 2698, et
seq., and that as of the date she filed the SAC, the
LWDA had not responded. (Id. ¶ 34.) As such,
pursuant to California Labor Code § 2699(a), Plaintiff
seeks recovery of “any and all applicable civil
penalties” for Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code § 226(a) for the relevant time
period, on behalf of herself and the putative class members.
(Id. ¶ 35.)
Based
on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts the following causes
of action:
(1) Violation of California Labor Code § 226(a) (the
“First Cause of ...