Johnson v. San Francisco Health Care and Rehab Inc.
3:22-cv-01982
N.D. Cal.Jul 15, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Jamie Johnson worked for Defendant San Francisco Health Care and Rehab for ~6 months in 2021 and brought a putative class action alleging California Labor Code and UCL violations (minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest breaks, final pay timing, and wage statements).
- Defendant is party to a SEIU collective bargaining agreement (CBA); Defendant removed the state-court action to federal court asserting LMRA § 301 (CBA) preemption and federal-question jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff moved to remand; Defendant moved to dismiss. The Court considered whether LMRA preemption applied to each state-law claim.
- The Court held LMRA § 301 preempted Plaintiff’s claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 204(a) (timing of semimonthly pay) but did not preempt the other Labor Code claims (§§ 510 overtime, meal/rest breaks, minimum wage, §§ 201/202/203/226 wage timing/statement claims).
- The § 204 claim (and any derivative UCL theory based on § 204) was dismissed for failure to allege exhaustion of the CBA grievance/arbitration process; the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded them to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LMRA § 301 preempts the overtime claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 510 | § 510 creates independent state-law overtime rights not solely from the CBA | The CBA satisfies Cal. Lab. Code § 514 (or otherwise requires interpretation) so § 510 is displaced | Not preempted: CBA does not satisfy § 514 (no 1.3× minimum for all covered employees); preemption not shown |
| Whether LMRA § 301 preempts meal and rest break claims (§§ 226.7, 512) | Meal/rest rights arise from state law independent of the CBA | CBA provisions on breaks, scheduling, and emergencies make the state-law claims substantially dependent on CBA interpretation | Not preempted: rights not substantially dependent on CBA interpretation |
| Whether LMRA § 301 preempts minimum wage and derivative wage claims | State minimum-wage claims stand independent of the CBA | Wage provisions in CBA govern and require interpretation, so preemption applies | Not preempted: Defendant failed to show necessity of interpreting CBA terms; § 510 non-preemption undermines derivative argument |
| Whether LMRA § 301 preempts claims tied to pay schedule (Cal. Lab. Code § 204) and related wage-timing/statements (§§ 201, 202, 203, 226) | § 204(d) compliance argument and other statutes control; CBA does not displace other wage/statute protections | Section 204(c) allows a CBA with different pay arrangements to govern, so § 204(a) claim stems from the CBA | Mixed: § 204(a) claim preempted by LMRA § 301 (CBA pay arrangement applies) and dismissed for failure to allege exhaustion; claims under §§ 201/202/203/226 not preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (removal requires that the case originally could have been filed in federal court; defendant bears burden of establishing removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute strictly construed; doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction)
- Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step LMRA § 301 preemption test: rights conferred by CBA and substantial dependence on CBA interpretation)
- Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019) (§ 514 analysis: when CBA satisfies § 514, state § 510 overtime rights may be preempted)
- Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016) (claims preempted by § 301 must be dismissed if plaintiff fails to exhaust CBA grievance/arbitration procedures)
- Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1979) (federal-question removal analysis looks to the complaint at the time of removal)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (1999) (party asserting statutory exemption bears the burden of proof)