Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06141/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ROYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-06141-JD 

ORDER RE DISMISSAL AND STAY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 17

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Roya originally filed this employment action against Everport 

Terminal Services and several other defendants in California state court. Roya was a longshore 

mechanic at a terminal in the Port of Oakland, and captioned his complaint as an action for 

“wrongful termination” and other employment-related claims. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B. The original 

complaint expressly mentioned the “pacific coast longshore contract document” as being “in 

dispute.” Id. Defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of complete pre-emption 

under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). See Dkt. No. 1. 

Roya did not object to the removal, and subsequently amended his complaint with references to 

42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and other federal statutes. Dkt. No. 17. While removal appears to have 

been appropriate at the time of the original complaint, it is possible that facts might emerge that 

would cast doubt on complete pre-emption and vitiate federal question jurisdiction. See AllisChalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 211 (1985); McCray v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 902 

F.3d 1005, 1011 (9th Cir. 2018).

As it currently stands, the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 17, does not state enough facts in a 

sufficiently clear way to make out a plausible claim. A complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” so that the defendants have 

fair notice of the substance of the claim and the facts supporting it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see 

also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). As a pro se plaintiff, Roya is 

Case 3:18-cv-06141-RS Document 21 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the application of this standard, and a liberal construction of 

his complaint. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Even so, the amended 

complaint is not coherent enough to go forward. It runs just under two-and-a-half pages, and 

features statements such as “Kenneth green is a known troublemaker and liar” and “this whole 

thing started over a rope being cut by Brian tilly.” Dkt. No. 17 at 1, 2. The lack of clarity is 

exacerbated by the fact that Roya attached over 100 pages of medical and employment records, 

including documents from a union grievance proceeding. There is simply not enough explanation 

in the amended complaint to apprise the Court of what Roya’s claims might be, or to give 

defendants fair notice of what they need to respond to.

Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a second

amended complaint by February 4, 2019. Failure to amend by that date will result in dismissal 

with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

In the meantime, the case is stayed in its entirety. The case management conference set for 

January 10, 2019, is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06141-RS Document 21 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 2