Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05324/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05324-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL ET AL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 INLAND PAPERBOARD AND PACKAGING

INC,

Defendant. /

No. C04-05324 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND PURSUANT TO NINTH

CIRCUIT MANDATE

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For Remand Pursuant To Ninth Circuit Mandate. 

(Docket No. 78.) Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Motion within the deadline provided

for by Local Rule 7-3(a). 

Remand is appropriate. This Court, in April 2005 and May 2005 orders, ruled that Plaintiffs’

California Labor Code § 512(a) meal period claim was preempted by Labor Management Relations

Act § 301, and on that basis denied Plaintiffs’ motion for remand and granted Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment. In a January 17, 2007 judgment, the Ninth Circuit reversed, and found that

this Court lacks jurisdiction, based on the subsequently issued decision in Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.,

410 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2005), which held that § 301 does not preempt § 512 meal period

claims.

The Court declines to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to award post-appeal

fees and costs to Plaintiffs in connection with the pending motion for remand. Defendant’s original

Case 3:04-cv-05324-MJJ Document 81 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

removal was not objectively unreasonable. Though the Court is troubled by Defendant’s failure to

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, the Court does not find

these circumstances warrant an award of fees and costs.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court VACATES the August 14, 2007 hearing in this matter

and REMANDS this matter to state court. The clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to send a certified

copy of this Order to the clerk of the state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05324-MJJ Document 81 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2