Herrera v. Goodfellow Bros. California, LLC

Background

Raymond Herrera asserted one claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on behalf of himself and other allegedly affected employees. The court treated that claim as involving three categories: Herrera’s individual claims, representative claims for employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and representative claims for employees covered by a CBA.

On August 28, 2024, Goodfellow Bros. California, LLC and Goodfellow Bros. LLC removed the case from state court to federal court. They asserted that the claims were preempted in whole or in part by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because many of the allegedly affected employees were covered by a qualifying CBA.

Motion to Remand

Herrera moved to remand the case to state court. He argued that the federal court lacked federal-question jurisdiction because he was a non-union employee who had never been covered by a CBA. The defendants opposed the motion and asked the court to defer the jurisdictional issue until after considering other matters, including a possible motion to dismiss.

The court explained that the party removing a case must establish federal jurisdiction and must allege facts supporting both subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III standing. Article III standing requires an injury in fact. Although a person may have statutory standing to bring representative PAGA claims, that does not automatically establish constitutional standing to pursue those claims in federal court. The court stated that a plaintiff has Article III standing to bring representative PAGA claims only for violations that injured the plaintiff himself.

Ruling

The defendants acknowledged that their sole basis for federal jurisdiction was Section 301 preemption concerning the CBA claims. The court found that Herrera was not, and had never been, covered by a CBA. His alleged injuries therefore arose from claimed violations of rights under the California Labor Code, rather than injuries to rights secured by a CBA.

Because Herrera had not suffered the alleged CBA-related injuries, the court held that he lacked Article III standing to pursue the CBA claims. The court consequently held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action and declined to defer that determination.

The court granted Herrera’s motion to remand. It remanded the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda.