New Jersey Carpenters & the Trustees Thereof Ex Rel. Chatten v. Tishman Construction Corp., 760 F.3d 297

Carpenters worked on the Revel Casino Project in NJ and allege Simon/Watt failed to provide fringe benefits required by New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act (PWA).
Plaintiffs are employee-benefit plans/trust funds who obtained assigned claims from the workers and sued Tishman Construction in state court under the PWA (and EDA Act). Defendant removed to federal court claiming federal preemption.
Defendant argued complete preemption under ERISA §502(a) and §301 of the LMRA, and district court concluded ERISA §502(a) completely preempted the claim and dismissed under ERISA preemption.
Plaintiffs moved to remand; they asserted the PWA creates an independent state-law duty to pay prevailing wages that does not require interpreting ERISA plans or collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
Third Circuit reviews de novo whether ERISA or LMRA completely preempt the PWA claims and whether federal jurisdiction was proper; it vacated dismissal and ordered remand to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ERISA §502(a) completely preempts the PWA claims	PWA imposes an independent state-law wage duty; no ERISA plan interpretation needed	Plaintiffs seek to collect benefit contributions and thus their claim falls within ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme	Not completely preempted: PWA duty is independent of ERISA, so §502(a) does not confer federal jurisdiction
Whether LMRA §301 completely preempts the PWA claims	PWA claim is independent of any CBA and can be resolved without interpreting a CBA	Amounts overlap with CBAs, so resolution depends on CBA terms and §301 applies	Not completely preempted: claim can be resolved without interpreting CBAs, so §301 does not preempt
Whether district court had removal jurisdiction to decide ERISA §514 express preemption	Remand appropriate; state court should decide express-preemption defenses	Defendant can raise express preemption in federal court if removal proper	Held: District Court lacked removal jurisdiction; it should remand to state court, where express-preemption defenses may be raised
Whether identity of parties (plans) alone triggers ERISA federal law jurisdiction	Identity of parties does not determine jurisdiction; focus is on the nature of the claim	Defendant argued plan-party status supports removal	Held: Party identity insufficient; must examine whether federal ERISA law is an essential element of the claim

Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct.) (LMRA §301 complete-preemption principle)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (Sup. Ct.) (ERISA §502(a) complete-preemption doctrine)
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (examples of complete preemption)
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (Sup. Ct.) (ERISA’s expansive preemptive effect and §502(a) enforcement scheme)
Pascack Valley Hosp. Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393 (3d Cir.) (two-prong test for ERISA complete preemption)
Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (Sup. Ct.) (state-law claim not preempted where it can be resolved without interpreting CBA)
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (Sup. Ct.) (§301 preemption requires substantial dependence on CBA interpretation)
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing wage regulation from ERISA-regulated ongoing benefit programs)
Keystone Chapter, Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Foley, 37 F.3d 945 (3d Cir.) (state prevailing-wage law not preempted by ERISA)
Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (3d Cir.) (parallelism between CBA and state law does not alone create §301 dependence)