Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04796/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04796-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

GENE CHAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED SCREENERS ASSOCIATION,

LOCAL ONE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04796 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND

AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to remand this matter to state court and plaintiffs’

related motion for attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable

for disposition without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for Friday,

February 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to

remand and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs in this matter are six individuals who are involved with the Service Employees Union,

Local 790 (“Local 790"). Five of these individuals work as screeners for Covenant Aviation Security;

the sixth is an organizer on staff at Local 790. On October 13, 2005, plaintiffs filed this action in San

Francisco Superior Court, bringing seven causes of action under California law against defendants, a

union that sought to represent Covenant Airport Security screeners and two of that union’s directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants published a series of flyers that contained false and disparaging

statements about plaintiffs.

Case 3:05-cv-04796-SI Document 16 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendants were served with the complaint on October 25, 2005, but did not retain counsel until

November 18, 2005, less than a week before the deadline to remove this action to federal court. See

Decl. of Stephen Sommers in Oppo. to Pl. Mot., ¶ 5. Defense counsel determined that the complaint

implicated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because “state law torts claims in the context

of a labor dispute are activities regulated by and properly adjudicated under the [NLRA].” Notice of

Removal, at 2. Thus, defendants removed the case to this Court on November 22, 2005, two days before

the removal deadline.

Plaintiffs have now filed a motion to remand, and seek attorneys’ fees in connection with

defendants’ improper removal. Defendant agrees that its removal was improper. See Ethridge v.

Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1399 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[W]hen a claim of Garmonpreemption is raised, it must be considered and resolved by the state court.”). Defendants, however,

oppose plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.

The Court declines to award attorneys’ fees in this case. Plaintiffs have not provided any

evidence that the removal was made in bad faith. To the contrary, it appears that defense counsel had

to move quickly and made a legal error. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel could have saved both parties

considerable expense by attempting to resolve this matter informally, given that both parties agree that

Ethridge directly controls this case. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to

remand and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees (Docket No. 7).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2006 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04796-SI Document 16 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 3:05-cv-04796-SI Document 16 Filed 02/01/06 Page 3 of 3