Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848

C.D. California

Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848

DecidedDecember 20, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-08585

StatusUnknown

This text of Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 (Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 cc: Los Angeles County Superior Court, 19STCV27369 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 PETER GUINAN, ) CV 19-8585-RSWL-JC ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER re: Plaintiff’s 14 ) Motion to Remand Case to v. ) State Court [9] 15 ) ) 16 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD ) OF TEAMSTERS, UNION LOCAL ) 17 NUMBER 848, SHIPPERS ) TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., ) 18 and DOES 1 to 100, ) ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) 21 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter 23 Guinan’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand Case to State 24 Court [9]. Having reviewed all papers submitted 25 pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND 26 RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background 3 Plaintiff is an individual residing in Orange 4 County, California. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Defendant 5 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 6 (“Local 848") is and was a labor organization 7 representing employees in the State of California, 8 County of Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Shippers 9 Transport Express, Inc. (“STE”) is and was a California 10 corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, 11 California. Id. ¶ 3. 12 Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant STE as 13 a driver and was a member of Local 848. Mot. 3:20-21. 14 On or about June 4, 2018, Plaintiff was involved in a 15 collision with another vehicle while on duty. Id. at 16 3:22-24. Two days later, on June 6, 2018, Plaintiff 17 was suspended by STE pending further investigation, and 18 subsequently received his Written Notice of termination 19 on June 25, 2018. Id. at 3:23-4:3. Plaintiff’s 20 Written Notice of termination stated that Plaintiff was 21 involved in three preventable accidents within two 22 years on January 1, 2016, September 20, 2017, and June 23 4, 2018. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19. 24 Plaintiff claims that he filed a Grievance 25 regarding the Written Notice dated September 20, 2017, 26 but that Local 848 never processed it. Id. ¶ 19. 27 Further, Plaintiff alleges that he received a 28 correspondence from the Local 848 Secretary Treasurer 1 regarding the Written Notice for the accident on June 2 14, 2018, where the Secretary admitted that Plaintiff’s 3 termination was wrong; however, Local 848 did not 4 challenge the Wrongful Discharge violations. Id. ¶ 20. 5 On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with 6 the National Labor Relations Board against Local 848 7 and STE, which was subsequently dismissed. Id. ¶¶ 23, 8 24. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff requested an 9 extension of time to file his appeal by November 11, 10 2018 and ultimately filed his appeal on November 9, 11 2019. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff received a letter dated 12 February 7, 2019 from the National Labor Relations 13 Board deeming his appeal untimely. Id. ¶ 26. 14 B. Procedural Background 15 On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his complaint 16 pursuant to Labor Management Relations Act § 301 17 (“LMRA”) which governs contracts between labor 18 organizations and employers. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Plaintiff 19 alleges that Defendant STE breached the Collective 20 Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between it and Local 848 21 when it terminated Plaintiff without just cause. Id. ¶ 22 32. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Local 848 23 “arbitrarily, discrimnaotrily [sic], and/or in bad 24 faith, breached [its] duty of fair 25 representation . . . .” Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, on 26 October 4, 2019, Defendant Local 848 removed this 27 Action to federal court on the basis of federal 28 question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 1. 2 On October 11, 2019, Defendant Local 848 filed a 3 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted [8]. On October 15 2019, 6 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand the Action 7 to State Court [9]. On October 21, 2019, the parties 8 stipulated to have Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand heard 9 prior to Defendant Local 848's Motion to Dismiss [10, 10 11]. Defendant Local 848 filed its Opposition to 11 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [12] on November 5, 2019, 12 and Plaintiff timely replied [13]. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 A. Legal Standard 15 Civil actions may be removed from state court if 16 the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 17 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 18 (2002) (“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order 19 properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 20 provision, . . . original subject-matter jurisdiction 21 [must] lie[] in the federal courts.”). Federal 22 question jurisdiction exists in “all civil actions 23 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 24 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 25 “All defendants who have been properly joined and 26 served must join in or consent to the removal of the 27 action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(2)(A). “When fewer than 28 all of the defendants have joined in a removal action, 1 the removing party has the burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2 1446 to explain affirmatively the absence of any 3 co-defendants in the notice of removal.” Brady v. 4 Lovelace Health Plan, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1173 5 (D.N.M. 2007) (citing Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. 6 Airco Industrial Gases, 676 F.2d 270, 273 (7th 7 Cir.1982); 14C JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL 8 PRACTICES § 3739 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997)). 9 Further, “[t]he burden of establishing jurisdiction 10 falls on the party invoking the removal statute, which 11 is strictly construed against removal.” Sullivan v. 12 First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th 13 Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). Courts 14 resolve all ambiguities “in favor of remand to state 15 court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 16 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 17 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). A removed case must be 18 remanded “[i]f at any time before final judgment it 19 appears that the district court lacks subject matter 20 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 21 B. Discussion 22 Plaintiff appears to misunderstand the meaning of 23 “concurrent jurisdiction.” As Local 848 suggests, 24 Plaintiff’s Motion reads more like a treatise on this 25 Court’s jurisdiction and removal procedure than a legal 26 argument as to why removal was improper. Plaintiff 27 fails to put forth any real argument other than 28 claiming that “California has concurrent jurisdiction” 1 and that “Defendant [Local 848] is aware of the case 2 law.” Mot. 15:14-16. 3 A defendant may properly remove any action that 4 could have been originally filed in the federal courts. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Here, the statute is clear and 6 Plaintiff admits that this Court has jurisdiction over 7 the Action. See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (“Suits for 8 violation of contracts between an employer and a labor 9 organization representing employees in an industry 10 affecting commerce . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 cc: Los Angeles County Superior Court, 19STCV27369 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 PETER GUINAN, ) CV 19-8585-RSWL-JC ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER re: Plaintiff’s 14 ) Motion to Remand Case to v. ) State Court [9] 15 ) ) 16 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD ) OF TEAMSTERS, UNION LOCAL ) 17 NUMBER 848, SHIPPERS ) TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., ) 18 and DOES 1 to 100, ) ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) 21 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter 23 Guinan’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand Case to State 24 Court [9]. Having reviewed all papers submitted 25 pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND 26 RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background 3 Plaintiff is an individual residing in Orange 4 County, California. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Defendant 5 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848 6 (“Local 848") is and was a labor organization 7 representing employees in the State of California, 8 County of Los Angeles. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant Shippers 9 Transport Express, Inc. (“STE”) is and was a California 10 corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, 11 California. Id. ¶ 3. 12 Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant STE as 13 a driver and was a member of Local 848. Mot. 3:20-21. 14 On or about June 4, 2018, Plaintiff was involved in a 15 collision with another vehicle while on duty. Id. at 16 3:22-24. Two days later, on June 6, 2018, Plaintiff 17 was suspended by STE pending further investigation, and 18 subsequently received his Written Notice of termination 19 on June 25, 2018. Id. at 3:23-4:3. Plaintiff’s 20 Written Notice of termination stated that Plaintiff was 21 involved in three preventable accidents within two 22 years on January 1, 2016, September 20, 2017, and June 23 4, 2018. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19. 24 Plaintiff claims that he filed a Grievance 25 regarding the Written Notice dated September 20, 2017, 26 but that Local 848 never processed it. Id. ¶ 19. 27 Further, Plaintiff alleges that he received a 28 correspondence from the Local 848 Secretary Treasurer 1 regarding the Written Notice for the accident on June 2 14, 2018, where the Secretary admitted that Plaintiff’s 3 termination was wrong; however, Local 848 did not 4 challenge the Wrongful Discharge violations. Id. ¶ 20. 5 On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with 6 the National Labor Relations Board against Local 848 7 and STE, which was subsequently dismissed. Id. ¶¶ 23, 8 24. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff requested an 9 extension of time to file his appeal by November 11, 10 2018 and ultimately filed his appeal on November 9, 11 2019. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff received a letter dated 12 February 7, 2019 from the National Labor Relations 13 Board deeming his appeal untimely. Id. ¶ 26. 14 B. Procedural Background 15 On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his complaint 16 pursuant to Labor Management Relations Act § 301 17 (“LMRA”) which governs contracts between labor 18 organizations and employers. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Plaintiff 19 alleges that Defendant STE breached the Collective 20 Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between it and Local 848 21 when it terminated Plaintiff without just cause. Id. ¶ 22 32. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Local 848 23 “arbitrarily, discrimnaotrily [sic], and/or in bad 24 faith, breached [its] duty of fair 25 representation . . . .” Id. ¶ 29. Subsequently, on 26 October 4, 2019, Defendant Local 848 removed this 27 Action to federal court on the basis of federal 28 question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 1. 2 On October 11, 2019, Defendant Local 848 filed a 3 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon 5 which relief can be granted [8]. On October 15 2019, 6 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand the Action 7 to State Court [9]. On October 21, 2019, the parties 8 stipulated to have Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand heard 9 prior to Defendant Local 848's Motion to Dismiss [10, 10 11]. Defendant Local 848 filed its Opposition to 11 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [12] on November 5, 2019, 12 and Plaintiff timely replied [13]. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 A. Legal Standard 15 Civil actions may be removed from state court if 16 the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 17 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 18 (2002) (“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order 19 properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that 20 provision, . . . original subject-matter jurisdiction 21 [must] lie[] in the federal courts.”). Federal 22 question jurisdiction exists in “all civil actions 23 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 24 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 25 “All defendants who have been properly joined and 26 served must join in or consent to the removal of the 27 action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(2)(A). “When fewer than 28 all of the defendants have joined in a removal action, 1 the removing party has the burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2 1446 to explain affirmatively the absence of any 3 co-defendants in the notice of removal.” Brady v. 4 Lovelace Health Plan, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1173 5 (D.N.M. 2007) (citing Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. 6 Airco Industrial Gases, 676 F.2d 270, 273 (7th 7 Cir.1982); 14C JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL 8 PRACTICES § 3739 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 1997)). 9 Further, “[t]he burden of establishing jurisdiction 10 falls on the party invoking the removal statute, which 11 is strictly construed against removal.” Sullivan v. 12 First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th 13 Cir. 1987) (internal citations omitted). Courts 14 resolve all ambiguities “in favor of remand to state 15 court.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 16 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 17 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). A removed case must be 18 remanded “[i]f at any time before final judgment it 19 appears that the district court lacks subject matter 20 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 21 B. Discussion 22 Plaintiff appears to misunderstand the meaning of 23 “concurrent jurisdiction.” As Local 848 suggests, 24 Plaintiff’s Motion reads more like a treatise on this 25 Court’s jurisdiction and removal procedure than a legal 26 argument as to why removal was improper. Plaintiff 27 fails to put forth any real argument other than 28 claiming that “California has concurrent jurisdiction” 1 and that “Defendant [Local 848] is aware of the case 2 law.” Mot. 15:14-16. 3 A defendant may properly remove any action that 4 could have been originally filed in the federal courts. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Here, the statute is clear and 6 Plaintiff admits that this Court has jurisdiction over 7 the Action. See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (“Suits for 8 violation of contracts between an employer and a labor 9 organization representing employees in an industry 10 affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any district 11 court of the United States having jurisdiction of the 12 parties . . . .”); see also Mot. 10:20-23 (“[The 13 statute] . . . provides that [these] suits ‘may’ be 14 brought in federal district courts . . . .”). 15 The fact that the state court has concurrent 16 jurisdiction over the Action does not, in any way, make 17 Local 848’s removal improper. Plaintiff’s claims 18 clearly arise under federal law and therefore, the 19 Court has original jurisdiction to hear the Action. 20 See 28. U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff failed to provide any 21 real argument justifying his claim that removal is 22 improper. As such, the Court finds that removal was 23 proper and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this 24 Action to State Court.1 25 26 1 Because the Court concludes that Defendant properly 27 removed this Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) for federal question jurisdiction, it need not address Defendant’s discussion 28 of preemption. 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby 3 DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this Action to 4 State Court. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED: December 20, 2019 /s/ Ronald S.W. Lew 9 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior U.S. District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peter Guinan v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-guinan-v-international-brotherhood-of-teamsters-local-848-cacd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack