Carrillo v. Monterey Mechanical Co.

Background

Vincent Carrillo asserted nine California-law claims against Monterey Mechanical Co. on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated employees. The claims concerned minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest periods, final wages, wage statements, expense reimbursement, employment records, and related unfair competition. Monterey removed the action from the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County, arguing that the claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the employees’ rights depended on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Carrillo moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that Monterey’s removal was untimely and that his claims arose only under California law and did not require reliance on or interpretation of the CBA.

Timeliness of Removal

The court did not resolve the conflicting evidence about whether process server Moises Altunar Hernandez properly served Christina Sou at Monterey’s office on October 10, 2024. Sou stated that she did not receive the documents, while Hernandez submitted a proof of service and a later declaration stating that he had served her. The court expressly stated that its order did not determine either person’s credibility.

Instead, the court found that Carrillo’s attorney agreed to complete service through a Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt rather than dispute the earlier service. Monterey signed that notice on November 18, 2024, and removed the case on December 18, 2024. The court held that this agreement independently made removal timely, even assuming the 30-day removal deadline applied from service of the complaint.

The court also held that the complaint itself did not provide notice that the case was removable. The complaint asserted state-law claims and did not mention the CBA on which Monterey based removal. Under the Ninth Circuit decisions discussed in the opinion, the complaint therefore did not trigger the 30-day removal period. The court rejected Carrillo’s argument that Monterey waived this position by stating in its notice of removal that it filed within 30 days after service of the complaint.

Labor Management Relations Act Preemption

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act can preempt state-law claims that depend on a CBA and can allow removal to federal court. The court described a two-step test: first, whether the claimed right exists solely because of the CBA; and, if not, whether resolving the state-law right substantially depends on interpreting the CBA. Mere consultation with or defensive reliance on a CBA is not enough.

The court focused on Carrillo’s claims that Monterey failed to make timely wage payments under California Labor Code section 204. Section 204(c) allows a different payment arrangement when employees are covered by a CBA providing for one. The CBA here provided for weekly payments, and Carrillo did not dispute that fact. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that the section 204 late-payment claims were preempted because any right to late-payment relief under those circumstances would exist solely because of the CBA.

The court rejected Carrillo’s argument that the late-payment claims could not be preempted because they were derivative of his minimum-wage and overtime claims. It concluded that the section 204 claims were separately and clearly asserted claims for relief, and that Monterey had shown why those claims themselves were preempted.

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Disposition

The court concluded that preemption of the late-payment claims was enough to establish federal-question jurisdiction. It also held that the remaining employment-related claims fell within supplemental jurisdiction because they were sufficiently intertwined with the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction. The court did not reach the parties’ arguments about whether other claims, including the overtime claim, were preempted.

The court DENIED Carrillo’s Motion to Remand. The opinion does not dismiss any claim or resolve the merits of the underlying wage-and-hour claims.