Anguiano v. Mann Packing Co., Inc.
5:19-cv-02133
| N.D. Cal. | Jul 8, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Maria Anguiano, a long‑time Mann Packing employee, brought a putative class action in California state court alleging unpaid/underpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, inaccurate wage statements, UCL claims, and PAGA penalties based on California Labor Code and related law.
- Complaint alleges Mann Packing paid different rates for different tasks and miscalculated overtime by failing to average multiple regular rates when computing overtime pay. Plaintiff also alleges wage statements and break practices violations.
- Defendant removed to federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction based on complete preemption under LMRA § 301, alleging the parties were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and that resolution of the claims depends on interpreting the CBA.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing her claims are grounded in state law and do not require interpreting CBA terms; defendant argued resolution requires CBA interpretation (e.g., "straight‑time hourly base rate," "combination job").
- The magistrate judge applied the Ninth Circuit two‑step Burnside/Alaska Airlines framework: (1) whether the state claim vindicates a right created by the CBA; (2) if not, whether resolution requires interpretation of the CBA. The court assumed for removal‑motion purposes that a CBA existed.
- Court held Mann Packing failed to show an active dispute over the meaning of any CBA term such that § 301 preemption applies, and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LMRA § 301 completely preempts the state law claims | Anguiano: claims arise from independent, non‑waivable state law rights; any CBA‑based defense cannot supply preemption | Mann Packing: plaintiff’s overtime, wage statement, and UCL claims depend on interpreting the CBA | Court: Not preempted; remand granted |
| Whether the overtime claim seeks rights created by the CBA (Burnside step 1) | Anguiano: claim vindicates statutory rights under California law, not CBA rights | Mann Packing: impliedly asserted CBA creates or controls pay rules | Court: Plaintiff’s claim does not seek to vindicate CBA‑created rights |
| Whether resolving the overtime claim requires interpretation of CBA terms (Burnside step 2) | Anguiano: resolution needs at most reference to CBA wage tables/rates; no CBA term meaning dispute | Mann Packing: resolving rate calculations requires interpreting terms like "straight‑time hourly base rate" and "combination job" | Court: No active dispute about those terms; mere reference insufficient for § 301 preemption |
| Whether defendant may rely on CBA or § 514 as an affirmative defense to defeat remand | Anguiano: affirmative defenses do not create federal jurisdiction | Mann Packing: defensive reliance on CBA could require federal interpretation | Court: Defensive reliance alone insufficient to establish § 301 preemption at removal stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (removal jurisdiction determined by complaint as filed)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (complete preemption doctrine; § 301 can convert state claims to federal)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (statutes with complete preemptive force)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (character of claim: does it vindicate CBA rights?)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (purely factual questions not requiring CBA interpretation do not preempt)
- Balcorta v. Twentieth Century‑Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 ("interpretation" construed narrowly)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (Ninth Circuit two‑step preemption test)
- Alaska Airlines v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904 (en banc Ninth Circuit clarifying Burnside framework)
- Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (defensive reliance on CBA does not itself create § 301 preemption)