John Susino v. Safeway Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Safeway and the other defendants to show cause why John Susino’s removed action should not be remanded to California state court. The court questioned federal-question jurisdiction, concluding that anticipated LMRA preemption defenses and references to federal labor statutes did not establish jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Holdings

1. An actual or anticipated federal defense, including a Section 301 preemption defense, does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
2. Merely referencing federal statutes in the text of a complaint does not, by itself, establish that the claims arise under federal law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants established federal-question jurisdiction sufficient to support removal based on an anticipated or actual Section 301 preemption defense.
2. Whether references to the Taft-Hartley Act or National Labor Relations Act in the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction.
3. Whether the action should be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

other