Porch-Clark v. Engelhart, 930 F. Supp. 2d 928

Suit originally filed in DuPage County Circuit Court, Illinois, later removed to federal court; remand denied and removal dismissed; case is a sequel to Corner v. Engelhart seeking to enforce a NWIAL election outcome; allegations center on Porch-Clark’s actions as NWIAL Election Committee Chairperson declaring Engelhart ineligible and Corner winner; complaint seeks enforcement of Porch-Clark’s decision, removal of Engelhart, possession of NWIAL property, and back pay or salaries; proceedings rely on Title IV of the LMRDA rather than state law; prior related federal actions and Secretary of Labor involvement are referenced; court concludes LMRDA provides exclusive remedy for challenge to union elections; thus federal jurisdiction precludes state-law claims and removal/remand issues become moot for jurisdiction purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal and venue were proper.	Plaintiffs argue venue is improper.	Defendants maintain venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois and removal timely.	Venue proper; removal timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) and § 1446(d); procedural hiccups did not defeat jurisdiction.
Whether the case falls within complete preemption by the LMRDA (Title IV).	Plaintiffs contend state-law claims survive and are not preempted.	Defendants argue the entire suit challenges the results of a union election and is completely preempted by the LMRDA.	Complete preemption applies; LMRDA precludes state-law claims and federal jurisdiction; case must be dismissed.
Whether remand or dismissal is proper given preemption.	Plaintiffs seek remand to state court.	Remand would be futile because state court lacks jurisdiction under federal preemption; dismissal appropriate.	Dismissal is the proper disposition, not remand; if refiled in state court, removal would occur again.

Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1984) (LMRDA exclusive remedy for post-election challenges; preemption principle cited for complete preemption analysis)
Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1964) (LMRDA Title IV provides exclusive remedy for challenged elections)
Davis v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. (UAW), 392 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2004) (complete preemption analogue; post-election relief falls under Secretary of Labor jurisdiction)
Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1991) (discusses futility/Remand discretion in § 1447(c) context)
Maine Association of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Comm’r, Maine Dept. of Human Services, 876 F.2d 1051 (1st Cir. 1989) (discusses limits of futility exception to remand under § 1447(c))
Smith v. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection, 23 F.3d 1134 (7th Cir. 1994) (rejects implicit futility exception based on state-law grounds where § 1447(c) is explicit)
Wujick v. Dale & Dale, Inc., 43 F.3d 790 (3d Cir. 1994) (endorses futility where federal law renders remand futile; supports dismissal)