Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04420/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04420-1/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COSMO LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SYSCO CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04420-JSW 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING, 

REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING, AND VACATING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Re: Docket Nos. 7, 17 

Now before the Court for consideration are: (1) the motion to remand, filed by Plaintiff 

Cosmo Lopez; and (2) the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Sysco Corporation. The Court 

has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds 

that supplemental briefing is warranted. 

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing scheduled for December 11, 2015 to 

February 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The Court VACATES the case management conference scheduled 

for January 8, 2016, and it shall reset the conference, if necessary, once it has resolved the pending 

motions. 

Sysco argues that the Court has jurisdiction, because Lopez’ claims that Sysco violated 

California Labor Code provisions regarding meal and rest periods are completely preempted under 

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“Section 301”). 

The Ninth Circuit has established a two part test to determine if claims are preempted 

under Section 301. See Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). First, the 

court inquires “whether the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred upon an employee 

by virtue of state law [and] not by a CBA.” 491 F.3d at 1059. If not, Section 301 preemption 

applies, and the Court’s inquiry is at an end. 

Case 4:15-cv-04420-JSW Document 21 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

sub

dep

law

inv

Hil

of i

que

sat

per

file

sha

par

Da

If howe

bstantially de

pend on such

w. If, howev

Lopez h

volve non-ne

ll Corp., 410

its briefs. 

Accord

estion: 

In their

isfied that L

riod claim w

Becaus

e the opening

all be due by

rties’ supplem

IT IS S

ated: Novemb

ever, the ans

epends on an

h an analysis

ver, the Cour

has argued th

egotiable stat

0 F.3d 1071 

dingly, the C

Even if the 

meaning of

period claim

the Court c

Pacific Stee

at *5 (N.D.

court may

‘purporting 

because suc

r responses, t

Lopez would 

would satisfy 

e Sysco bear

g brief on th

y January 8, 2

mental brief

SO ORDER

ber 7, 2015 

wer to the qu

n analysis of

s, the claim i

rt answers ye

hat his rest a

tutory rights

(9th Cir. 200

ourt requests

Court were 

f a provisio

ms, what is S

could consi

el Casting Co

 Cal. June 1

y not cons

to waive the

ch agreement

the parties sh

be covered b

the first pro

rs the burden

his point, whi

2016. Sysco

fs shall not e

RED. 

2

uestion is ye

f a collective

is not preem

es, the claim

and meal per

s. In support

05). Sysco h

s supplemen

to find that 

n in the CB

Sysco’s best 

ider that dis

o., No. 12-cv

1, 2012) (“T

sider a co

e right to me

t would be u

hall assume,

by the CBA

ong of the Bu

n of demons

ich shall be 

o may file a 

xceed seven

es, the Court

e bargaining 

mpted and the

m is preempte

riod claims a

t of this argu

has not addr

ntal briefing 

there might 

BA relating

argument th

spute? See

v-00353-NC

The Ninth C

ollective ba

eal periods’

unenforceabl

, for the sake

A; and (2) rej

urnside test.

strating that t

due by Dece

reply by no 

n pages. 

__

JE

Un

t must consid

 agreement. 

e plaintiff ma

ed. Id. at 10

are not preem

ument, Lope

essed this ar

from the par

be a dispute

g to the rest

hat, in light 

e, e.g., Rod

C, 2012 WL 

Circuit has h

argaining a

under Califo

le.”). 

e of argumen

ects Sysco’s

the Court ha

ember 18, 20

later than Ja

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

der whether 

 If the claim

ay proceed u

059-1060. 

mpted, becau

z relies on V

rgument dire

rties on the f

e over the 

t or meal 

of Valles, 

driguez v. 

2000793, 

held that a 

agreement 

ornia law, 

nt, that the C

s argument th

as jurisdictio

015. Lopez’

anuary 15, 2

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

the claim 

m does not 

under state 

use they 

Valles v. Ivy 

ectly in any 

following 

Court: (1) is 

hat the meal

on, it shall 

’ response 

016. The 

____ 

ge 

Case 4:15-cv-04420-JSW Document 21 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2