Gabriel Cabrera v. Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., 2:17-cv-09015

Defendant Sandberg Furniture filed a Notice of Removal contending federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 301 LMRA over Plaintiff Cabrera's FEHA and tort claims.
Plaintiff Cabrera asserted disability discrimination and failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Plaintiff's employment allegedly governed by a CBA between Defendant and Local 721.
The Court must determine if removal was proper by assessing federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
The Court held there is no § 301 preemption and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists under the well-pleaded complaint rule.	Cabrera’s FEHA and related claims arise under state law.	The CBA under § 301 LMRA preempts state claims and provides federal jurisdiction.	No federal question jurisdiction; remand granted.
Whether § 301 preemption applies to FEHA and state-law claims here.	FEHA discrimination claims are independent of the CBA and not preempted.	Discrimination and discharge claims are preempted if they require interpretation of the CBA.	§ 301 preemption does not apply; claims are independent of the CBA.

Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (preemption requires resolution by federal law when based on labor contract)
Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes contract interpretation from independent state-law claims)
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) (limits § 301 preemption; state claims may proceed if not dependent on contract)
Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (two-step analysis for preemption: right by state law vs. dependent on CBA)
Ramirez v. Fox Television Station, Inc., 998 F.2d 743 (9th Cir. 1993) (reference to CBA does not equal interpretation of terms for preemption)
Jimeno v. Mobil Oil Corp., 66 F.3d 1514 (9th Cir. 1995) (FEHA discrimination claims not preempted by § 301)
Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1989) (state-law claims preempted only if contract interpretation is required)
Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1990) (preemption analysis in labor-law context)
Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987) (artful pleading and preemption considerations discussed)