1 17-332-cv Romero v. DHL Ex press (USA), Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Cita tion to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party mu st cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse , 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18 th day of April, two thousand eighteen.

PRESENT: J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , R

AYMOND J. L OHIER , J R ., Circuit Judges, R ICHARD M. B ERMAN , District Judge. 

M AURICIO B AEZ R OMERO , Plaintiff-Appellant, 17-332-cv

v.

DHL E XPRESS (USA), I NC ., Defendant-Appellee

.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Mauricio Baez Romero, pro se , Bronx, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: David M. Wirtz, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY.

 Judge Richard M. Berman, of the United Sta tes District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.2 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John G. Koeltl, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the November 7, 2016 judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Mauricio Baez Ro mero (“Romero”), proceeding pro se , appeals from the District Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to his former employer, DHL Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Romero sued DHL in state court, alleging th at, after firing him, DHL failed to pay out vacation and holiday pay to which he was entitled pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. DHL removed the action to federal district court. The District Court denied Romero’s motion to remand the action back to state court, reasoning that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted Romero’s breach of contract and state labor law claims. The District Court also granted DHL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reas oning that Romero did not exhaust the required grievance procedures.

We review de novo the District Court’s denial of a mo tion to remand a removed action. Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp. , 418 F.3d 187, 193-94 (2d Ci r. 2005). We also review de novo a judgment on the pleadings, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Hayden v. Paterson , 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Harrison v. Republic of Sudan , 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016).
Upon review of the record, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court, we conclude that the District Court properly denied Romero’s motion to remand to state court and granted DHL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

CONCLUSION
We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Romero on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the November 7, 2016 judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk