Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.
927 F. Supp. 2d 50
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiffs are a putative class of at least sixty workers alleging unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime on a federally funded NYCHA project in Brooklyn.
- Defendants STV Construction, Inc. and Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. contracted to pay prevailing wages under the Davis-Bacon Act and related laws; contracts included wage schedules.
- Plaintiffs sued in New York Supreme Court for breach of contract and statutory wage claims; two contract-based claims and one NY labor law claim surface.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court arguing federal question jurisdiction based on preemption under the Davis-Bacon Act.
- The court remanded, holding removal improper because preemption is a federal defense, not a basis for removal, and no actual disputed federal issue was present; state court remand allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the case arise under federal question jurisdiction? | Plaintiffs argue no federal question; claims arise from state law. | Defendants argue preemption under the Davis-Bacon Act creates an actually disputed federal issue warranting removal. | Remand granted; no federal question jurisdiction. |
| Is complete preemption or artful pleading present to support removal? | Plaintiffs contend no complete preemption or artful pleading to convert state claim to federal claim. | Defendants contend artful pleading/completion preemption justifies removal. | Neither doctrine supports removal; remand proper. |
| Does the Davis-Bacon Act create an exclusive federal remedy precluding state claims? | Grochowski-like view that Act does not provide exclusive remedy for state contract claims. | Defendants rely on Grochowski to claim preemption and dismissal; removal depends on preemption. | Act does not completely preempt; removal improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.2003) (Act preempts state contract claims but does not provide exclusive remedy)
- Cox v. NAP Constr. Co., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 592 (N.Y.2008) (Davis-Bacon Act not exclusive remedy; preemption not complete)
- Chan v. City of New York, 1 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.1993) (possible avenue under §1983; not controlling for preemption here)
- Sullivan v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 424 F.3d 267 (2d Cir.2005) (artful pleading and complete preemption concepts)
- Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187 (2d Cir.2005) (Grable-based removal considerations; limits on defense-based removals)
- County of Nassau v. New York, 724 F.Supp.2d 295 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (distinguishes Grable/Broder framework for federal question removal)