Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00736/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00736-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

Case No. C 05-00736 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

(JFEX3)

** E-filed on 7/26/05 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUSTIN B. DOMBKOWSKI, JUAN M. CHAVEZ,

CHRISTINA LOPEZ, KATHERINE MYLES, and

DEE DEE SMITH,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAFEWAY INC.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-00736 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND ACTION TO STATE

COURT

[Docket No. 9]

Plaintiffs Justin B. Dombkowski, Juan M. Chavez, Christina Lopez, Katherine Myles and

Dee Dee Smith move to remand the instant action to the Santa Cruz Superior Court. Defendant

Safeway Inc. (“Safeway”) opposes the motion. The Court has read the moving and responding

papers and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 15, 2005. For the

reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs formerly were apprentice clerks employed by Safeway. During the course of

Plaintiffs’ employment, Safeway and local chapters of the Union Food & Commercial Workers

Union entered into Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) that established employees’

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 21 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-00736 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

(JFEX3)

wages pursuant to Wage Rate sheets. The CBAs provided, among other things, that each

apprentice clerk would receive a set increase in pay commencing upon completion of 520, 1040,

1560 and 2080 work hours. Safeway did not increase Plaintiffs’ wages on the precise dates

Plaintiffs reached these hourly benchmarks; instead, it applied the increased wages to the next

pay period, which in some cases was several hours or days after the benchmark had been reached.

On January 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint against Safeway in the Santa

Cruz Superior Court. On February 8, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, alleging

violations of the California Labor Code. On February 18, 2005, Safeway removed the action to

this Court on the ground that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by section 301 of the Labor

Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), often referred to as “the removal statute,” a defendant

may remove an action to federal court if the plaintiff could have filed the action in federal court

initially. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389,

1393 (9th Cir. 1988). A party may file an action in federal court if there is diversity of

citizenship among the parties or if the action raises a substantial federal question. Ethridge, 861

F.2d at 1393. The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction. Id. The removal statute is strictly construed against removal. Id. The matter

therefore should be remanded if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1992).

Removal may be improper due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. A

motion for remand due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, either by

the parties or sua sponte by the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co.,

592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979).

III. DISCUSSION

Any claim for relief that “can be resolved only by referring to the terms of the [collective

bargaining] agreement” is preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. Cook v. Lindsay Olive

Grower, 911 F.2d 233, 237 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon Safeway’s alleged

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 21 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 4
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

1For example, if the benchmark was 520 hours, Plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to

increased wages for hour 521 and all hours thereafter.

3

Case No. C 05-00736 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

(JFEX3)

failure to comply with the schedule of wage increases provided in the CBAs. Plaintiffs assert

that they were entitled to the wage increases immediately upon reaching the various hourly

benchmarks established by the CBAs.

1

 Safeway asserts that the wage increase became effective

for the pay period following completion of the hourly benchmarks. Safeway contends that

payment of the increased wages effective upon commencement of the next pay period is an

established past practice that must be considered in interpreting the CBAs.

It is well established that the parties’ practices, usage and custom are of significance in

interpreting collective bargaining agreements, as such agreements may include implied as well as

express terms. Conrail v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 311 (1989). Even if

the CBA itself is unambiguous, as Plaintiffs contend the instant agreements are, “[t]he Ninth

Circuit rule is that evidence of both bargaining history and the parties’ past practices is

admissible.” Warehousemen’s Health and Welfare Fund v. IT Corp., 524 F. Supp. 96, 97 (C.D.

Cal. 1981).

This Court concludes that adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims requires interpretation of the

CBAs and, in particular, requires consideration of evidence of Safeway’s past practices of paying

its employees the subject increase effective upon commencement of the next pay period. 

Accordingly, the action properly was removed.

IV. ORDER

The motion to remand is DENIED.

DATED: July 26, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 21 Filed 07/26/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 05-00736 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

(JFEX3)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John McBride jmcbride@wmjpr.com

R. Brian Dixon bdixon@littler.com

Philip Ross plross@littler.com

Laura Hayward lhayward@littler.com

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 21 Filed 07/26/05 Page 4 of 4