Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 20, 2019

PETER GUINAN, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, UNION LOCAL NUMBER 848, SHIPPERS TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants.

          ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT [9]

          HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter Guinan's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand Case to State Court [9]. Having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiff is an individual residing in Orange County, California. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 (“Local 848") is and was a labor organization representing employees in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Shippers Transport Express, Inc. (“STE”) is and was a California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California. Id. ¶ 3.

         Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant STE as a driver and was a member of Local 848. Mot. 3:20-21. On or about June 4, 2018, Plaintiff was involved in a collision with another vehicle while on duty. Id. at 3:22-24. Two days later, on June 6, 2018, Plaintiff was suspended by STE pending further investigation, and subsequently received his Written Notice of termination on June 25, 2018. Id. at 3:23-4:3. Plaintiff's Written Notice of termination stated that Plaintiff was involved in three preventable accidents within two years on January 1, 2016, September 20, 2017, and June 4, 2018. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19.

         Plaintiff claims that he filed a Grievance regarding the Written Notice dated September 20, 2017, but that Local 848 never processed it. Id. ¶ 19. Further, Plaintiff alleges that he received a correspondence from the Local 848 Secretary Treasurer regarding the Written Notice for the accident on June 14, 2018, where the Secretary admitted that Plaintiff's termination was wrong; however, Local 848 did not challenge the Wrongful Discharge violations. Id. ¶ 20.

         On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against Local 848 and STE, which was subsequently dismissed. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his appeal by November 11, 2018 and ultimately filed his appeal on November 9, 2019. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff received a letter dated February 7, 2019 from the National Labor Relations Board deeming his appeal untimely. Id. ¶ 26.

         B. Procedural Background

         On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to Labor Management Relations Act § 301 (“LMRA”) which governs contracts between labor organizations and employers. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant STE breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between it and Local 848 when it terminated Plaintiff without just cause. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Local 848 “arbitrarily, discrimnaotrily [sic], and/or in bad faith, breached [its] duty of fair representation . . . .” Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, on October 4, 2019, Defendant Local 848 removed this Action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal, ECF No.

         On October 11, 2019, Defendant Local 848 filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [8]. On October 15 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand the Action to State Court [9]. On October 21, 2019, the parties stipulated to have Plaintiff's Motion for Remand heard prior to Defendant Local 848's Motion to Dismiss [10, 11]. Defendant Local 848 filed its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [12] on November 5, 2019, and Plaintiff timely replied [13].

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Civil actions may be removed from state court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. See Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002) (“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, . . . original subject-matter jurisdiction [must] lie[] in the federal courts.”). Federal question jurisdiction exists in “all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.