# Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.

> District Court, C.D. California · September 10, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10768927

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** September 10, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10768927

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7583 PA (Ex) Date September 10, 2024
Title Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal (“NOR”) filed by defendant Connolly-Pacific
Co. (“Defendant”). (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that this Court possesses federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the preemption provided by § 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. For the reasons stated below,
the Court finds that Defendant has failed to plausibly allege that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only
over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit
filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction
is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal
jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999).
“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising
under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987).
Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if
it is “clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.
1996). Thus, the plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.
There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.
Id. The only exception to this rule is where a plaintiffs federal claim has been disguised by

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7583 PA (Ex) Date September 10, 2024
Title Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.
“artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by
federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Section 301 of the LMRA states that “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an
employer and a labor organization representing employees ... may be brought in any district
court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties... .” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The
Supreme Court has interpreted section 301 to require claims “alleging a violation of a provision
of a labor contract [to] be brought under § 301 and be resolved by reference to federal law.”
Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 210, 105 S. Ct. 1904, 85 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1985).
This preemption of state claims “extend[s] beyond suits alleging contract violations” to those
requiring interpretation of the provisions of labor agreements:
[Q]uestions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed,
and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of
that agreement, must be resolved by references to uniform federal
law, whether such questions arise in the context of a suit for breach
of contract or in a suit alleging liability in tort. Any other result
would elevate form over substance and allow parties to evade the
requirements of § 301 by relabeling their contract claims as claims
for tortious breach of contract.
Id. at 210-11. However, the scope of section 301 preemption is not absolute:
[N]ot every dispute concerning employment, or tangentially
involving a provision of a collective-bargaining agreement
[(“CBA”)], is pre-empted by § 301 or other provisions of the federal
labor law. ... Clearly, § 301 does not grant the parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement the ability to contract for what is
illegal under state law. In extending the pre-emptive effect of § 301
beyond suits for breach of contract, it would be inconsistent with
congressional intent under that section to preempt state rules that
proscribe conduct, or establish rights and obligations, independent of
a labor contract.
Id. at 211-12. “In order to help preserve state authority in areas involving minimum labor
standards, the Supreme Court has distinguished between claims that require interpretation or
construction of a labor agreement and those that require a court simply to ‘look at’ the
agreement.” Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7583 PA (Ex) Date September 10, 2024
Title Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.
2000) (citing Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123-26, 114 S. Ct. 2068, 129 L. Ed. 2d 93
(1994)). In particular, “when the meaning of contract terms is not the subject of dispute, the bare
fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation
plainly does not require the claim to be extinguished.” Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124 (citing Lingle v.
Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 413 n.12, 108 S. Ct. 1877, 100 L. Ed. 2d 410
(1988)). “[E]ven if dispute resolution pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement, on the one
hand, and state law, on the other, would require addressing precisely the same set of facts, as
long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is
‘independent’ of the agreement for § 301 pre-emption purposes.” Lingle, 486 U.S. at 409-10.
Accordingly, preemption under section 301 requires a two-step analysis. Alaska Airlines
Inc. v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 920-22 (9th Cir. 2018) (en banc); Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp.,
491 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2007). First, the Court must determine “whether the asserted
cause of action involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law, not by a
CBA.” Burnside, 491 F.3d at 1059. “Ifa claim arises entirely from a right or duty of the
CBA—for example, a claim for violation of the labor agreement, whether sounding in contract
or in tort—it is, in effect, a CBA dispute in state law garb, and is preempted. In such cases, the
CBA is the ‘only source’ of the right the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.” Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d
at 921 (footnote, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). “[C]laims are not simply CBA
disputes by another name, and so are not preempted under this first step, if they just refer to a
CBA-defined right; rely in part on a CBA’s terms of employment; run parallel toa CBA
violation; or invite use of the CBA as a defense.” Id. (citations omitted).
If the right asserted by the plaintiff is conferred by state law, the Court proceeds to the
second step, in which it must determine whether the plaintiffs claim is nevertheless
“substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Burnside, 491 F.3d
at 1059 (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 394). If the claim requires the court to “interpret,”
rather than merely “look to,” the CBA, then the claim is substantially dependent thereon and is
preempted by section 301. Id. at 1060. ““The plaintiff’s claim is the touchstone for this analysis;
the need to interpret the collective bargaining agreement must inhere in the nature of the
plaintiff's claim.” Detabali v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 2007) (alteration
omitted) (quoting Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2001) (en
banc))). “[It is not] enough that resolving the state law claim requires a court to refer to the
CBA and apply its plain or undisputed language — for example, to discern that none of its terms
is reasonably in dispute; to identify bargained-for wage rates in computing a penalty; or to
determine whether the CBA contains a clear and unmistakable waiver of state law rights.”
Alaska Airlines, 898 F.3d at 921-22 (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7583 PA (Ex) Date September 10, 2024
Title Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a single cause of action for violation of California
Labor Code § 1102.5. The Complaint alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for
reporting his employer’s illegal activity — including unsanitary conditions, forced sharing of
hotel rooms during the pandemic, and insufficient numbers of crew members on the ship. The
Complaint alleges that the retaliation took the form of loss of seniority, denial of training,
promotion and work opportunities. (Docket No. 1-1.) Defendant contends that although
Plaintiff pleads his cause of action as a state law claim, it is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA
because the cause of action is“inextricably intertwined” with terms in the CBA governing the
terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment. In particular, Defendants argue that the Court
would need to interpret the CBA in order to determine whether Plaintiff was in fact subject to
adverse employment action and whether he had a reasonable belief that the conduct he reported
violated the CBA. (Docket No. | at pp. 6-9.) Defendant also argues that because some of the
alleged wrongdoing has been adjudicated through the CBA’s grievance process, the Court would
need to interpret the CBA in order to determine whether Plaintiffs cause of action 1s precluded
by the doctrine of res judicata. Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
First, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that § 301 does not preempt employment
discrimination or retaliation claims, even where a CBA contains provisions that may be relevant
to such claims. See Detabali v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 482 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 2007); Jimeno
v. Mobil Oil Corp., 66 F.3d 1514, 1522-1528 (9th Cir. 1995); Ramirez v. Fox Television Station,
Inc., 998 F.2d 743, 748-49 (9th Cir. 1993); Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233, 237-
38 (9th Cir. 1990); Jackson v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 643-44 (9th Cir. 1989); Ackerman
v. W. Elec. Co., 860 F.2d 1514, 1517-18 (9th Cir. 1988).
Second, Defendant fails to plausibly allege that resolution of Plaintiff's cause of action
will require interpretation of, rather than mere reference to, the CBA. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants discriminated against him after he reported allegedly illegal and working conditions
that violated terms of the CBA. While Defendant may raise questions as to whether its conduct
was actually in violation of the CBA or whether Plaintiff was subject to adverse employment
action, Plaintiff's Complaint focuses on Defendants’ alleged retaliatory actions as a result of his
protected whistle blowing activity, and not the meaning of the CBA’s terms. The basic legal
issues presented by the cause of action can be decided by referring to the CBA and do not
require interpreting the CBA.’ As such, Plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action is not preempted.
See Brown, 571 F. App’x at 575 (“The elements of [retaliation] claim require an inquiry into the
respective actions of the employer and the employee . . . This inquiry will not depend on

u Defendant does not claim that any of the CBA terms at issue are overly complicated or
would be difficult to apply to the facts alleged in this case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7583 PA (Ex) Date September 10, 2024
Title Monte Beard v. Connolly-Pacific Co.
interpretation of terms in the CBA.”); Arredondo v. S. Glazers Wine & Spirits, LLC, No. CV 22-
8698-FMO-MAAX, 2023 WL 62787, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2023) (concluding that wrongful
constructive discharge claim was not preempted by LMRA because it focused on defendants’
motivations for terminating plaintiff and thus would not require interpretation of CBA).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden to
establish that § 301 of the LMRA preempts Plaintiff's state-law cause of action or that there is
any other basis to confer federal question jurisdiction.” For the foregoing reasons, the Court
remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 24STCV17522, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

In its NOR, Defendant also cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 as a basis for the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. Section 1337(a) vests the district courts with “original jurisdiction of any
civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting
trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.” This argument fails, however, because
the only act of Congress implicated here is the LMRA, which does not give the Court
jurisdiction for the reasons described above.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10768927. Public record. Not legal advice.