Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06440/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-06440-0/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

---

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

WINIFRED L. GIBSON-JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BERKEL & COMPANY

CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.

 Defendants.

____________________________/

No. C 07-6440 WDB

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

On December 21, 2007, Defendants Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.

(“Berkel”) and Brian Zuckerman filed a notice of removal of this action from Contra

Costa Superior Court. On January 10, 2008, Defendants Berkel, Zuckerman, Jessica

Braverman, and Braverman Mediation and Consulting (“BMC”) filed a motion to

dismiss. In her opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff moves to remand this action

to the Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court must

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and may remand the action sua

sponte, other than for procedural defects; no further briefing on the motion to remand is

necessary. See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n. Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209,

1211 (9th Cir.1998).

Not all defendants have appeared in this action, and this Court has not secured

consent as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, once the matter has been fully

submitted, this Court will issue a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ motion

Case 4:07-cv-06440-PJH Document 16 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 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

to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion to remand, and will order the Clerk of the Court to

randomly reassign this action to a District Judge.

Having reviewed the papers and authorities cited therein, it is our view that the

Eighth Cause of Action is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations

Act, and that federal question removal was proper. It is also our view that diversity

jurisdiction does not exist because the complaint names two California residents, as well

as a business entity doing business in California. Defendants have not met their burden

to prove fraudulent joinder of the nondiverse parties by showing that Plaintiff fails to

state a cause of action against the resident defendants, and that the failure is obvious

according to the settled rules of state law. Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313,

1319 (9th Cir. 1998). 

By Monday, February 25, 2008, Plaintiff shall file a surreply indicating whether

she will dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action from the complaint, or whether she will seek

leave to amend that claim to state a cause of action arising under Section 301. Should

Plaintiff elect to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action, the undersigned will recommend to

the District Judge that the pendent state law claims be remanded to the Superior Court.

Should Plaintiff elect not to dismiss the Eighth Cause of Action, the undersigned will

issue a report and recommendation on Defendant’s motion to dismiss that cause of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-06440-PJH Document 16 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2