Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2026

Beltran v. Gonsalves & Santucci

Judge
Pitts
Docket
5:26-cv-06525
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Manuel Beltran v. Gonsalves & Santucci, Judge Pitts ordered the defendant to explain why this state-law wage case should not return to state court.

Who this affects

Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. must respond to the court’s order about why the case should remain in federal court. The litigation concerns Manuel Beltran’s state-law wage-and-hour claims.

What happened

Manuel Beltran v. Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. is a wage-and-hour lawsuit that was filed in state court and asserts only state-law claims. The defendant moved the case to federal court, arguing that federal law required the court to hear it.

The defendant relied on the Labor Management Relations Act, a federal labor law, and argued that it replaced or took over the state-law claims. The opinion says this court has previously rejected that argument in other cases.

The court did not yet remand the case. Instead, Judge P. Casey Pitts ordered the defendant to explain within 14 days why the case should not be sent back to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction; any response to the defendant’s statement is due within seven days afterward.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Beltran v. Gonsalves & Santucci · No. 5:26-cv-06525
Judge
Pitts
Date
Sept. 8, 2026

Background

Manuel Beltran filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit in state court. The opinion states that the lawsuit presents only state-law claims. Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. removed the case to federal court, arguing that the court had federal-question jurisdiction because the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted the claims. Preemption is the principle that federal law can displace certain state-law claims.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that it had previously rejected the defendant’s LMRA-preemption argument in other cases. The opinion cites Hernandez v. Pac. Underground Constr., Inc., Cortes v. Mass Elec. Constr. Co., and Sica v. Silicon Valley Mech., Inc. It did not decide the underlying wage-and-hour claims in this order.

Order

The court ordered Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. to show cause—meaning to explain—within 14 days why the action should not be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The order states that any response to the defendant’s statement must be filed within seven days after the defendant’s filing. The order to show cause is not itself a final remand order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.