Campos v. Green Diamond Resource Company
3:25-cv-00663
| N.D. Cal. | May 28, 2025Background
- Pablo Garcia Campos, a unionized employee, filed a representative action under California’s PAGA in Humboldt Superior Court, alleging Green Diamond Resource Company violated several wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code.
- The alleged violations included unpaid wages for off-the-clock work, improper overtime calculations, failure to provide required breaks and suitable facilities, unreimbursed expenses, and inaccurate wage statements.
- The employees were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that established wages, hours, and working conditions, and included a grievance procedure for disputes.
- Green Diamond removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction based on § 301 preemption of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), arguing the claims required interpretation of the CBA.
- Campos moved to remand to state court, arguing his claims arose solely under state law and did not require reference to the CBA.
- Green Diamond moved to dismiss, asserting the claims were preempted by § 301 and barred for failure to exhaust the CBA’s grievance procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 301 Preemption (Overtime Claims) | State law (Labor Code) governs overtime, not the CBA | Overtime rights are defined by the CBA, preempting state law | Overtime claim preempted; jurisdiction lies with federal court |
| § 301 Preemption (PAGA Claims Generally) | Entire claim arises under state law, not subject to CBA | Claims require CBA interpretation, thus preempted by § 301 | Supplemental jurisdiction over remaining PAGA theories |
| Exhaustion of CBA Grievance Procedures | Administrative remedies under CBA not required for PAGA | Employee must exhaust CBA grievance process before suing | Failure to exhaust bars claims; dismissed with prejudice |
| Remand to State Court | No federal question jurisdiction, should be remanded | Jurisdiction proper due to § 301 preemption | Remand denied; case remains in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (complete preemption doctrine makes state law claims arising solely from preempted law federal in character)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (Section 301 intended to create federal common law for labor contracts)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (Section 301 does not preempt nonnegotiable state law rights)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (sets out two-step test for Section 301 preemption)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (Section 301 conveys jurisdiction over labor contract disputes)
- Wright v. Universal Mar. Serv. Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (waivers of statutorily conferred rights in CBAs must be clear and unmistakable)
- Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to exhaust CBA remedies requires dismissal with prejudice)