Dempsey v. Raley's, 2:22-cv-01507-KJM-DB

Plaintiffs Joyce Dempsey and Sylvia Redding filed two related state‑court employment class actions against Raley’s in 2021.
Defendants removed both actions to federal court arguing LMRA §301 preemption because collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) controlled plaintiffs’ claims; the district court previously remanded those removals as untimely because defendants already had knowledge of the CBAs.
Defendants filed second notices of removal after obtaining a deposition transcript they say authenticates two CBAs and shows negotiation history and interpretation.
Plaintiffs moved to remand the successive federal removals, arguing they are procedurally barred and based on the same grounds as the first removals.
The court held defendants’ successive removals were barred because they relied on the same federal‑preemption theory as before; the deposition evidence did not present a new and different ground for removal.
The court granted remand in both related federal dockets and ordered the cases returned to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant may remove after a district court has already remanded the case	Successive removals barred unless based on new/different grounds	Successive removal permitted if new evidence or changed circumstances justify removal	Successive removals are procedurally barred absent a new and different ground for removal
Whether the deposition transcript authenticating CBAs supplies a new/different ground for removal	Transcript is only more evidence of the same LMRA preemption theory	Transcript authenticates CBAs and reveals negotiation history, enabling federal jurisdiction	Deposition evidence that merely bolsters the same preexisting theory is insufficient to permit successive removal
Whether a prior erroneous remand (if any) allows removal now	Prior remand bars removal regardless of error	Prior remand was erroneous and removal should be allowed now	Even if prior remand were erroneous, the strict bar on successive removals based on the same grounds controls

Kirkbride v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 933 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1991) (successive removal allowed only when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal)
Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2014) (change in binding law can justify successive removal)
Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, 781 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2015) (change in case facts, such as class certification, can justify successive removal)
Seedman v. United States Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California, 837 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may not vacate a remand order where successive removal is based on the same grounds)
Leon v. Gordon Trucking, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (a party cannot refile a notice of removal on the same grounds after remand)