Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sara Swanson’s motion to remand her state-law disability discrimination and retaliation action. The court held that at least her retaliation claim was completely preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because resolving it would require interpreting the collective bargaining agreement, making removal proper.
Holdings
- Removal was proper because Swanson's retaliation claim was completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA and therefore supplied federal-question jurisdiction.
Questions Presented
- Whether removal was proper because at least one of Swanson's state-law claims was completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.
- Whether resolution of Swanson's retaliation claim necessarily required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (7)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)(followed)
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987)(followed)
- Jackson v. Southern Cal. Gas. Co., 881 F.2d 638, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)(followed)
- Cramer v. Consol. Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Audette v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…