Phillip James Brown, Jr. v. Imperfect Foods Inc., et al.

Background

Phillip James Brown, Jr. sued Imperfect Foods Inc. and its parent company, Misfits Market, over alleged failures to pay minimum wages and overtime and to provide meal and rest breaks. He asserted eight California state-law claims and one claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The opinion states that Brown filed two cases in Santa Clara Superior Court under the same name—one involving state labor-law claims and one involving the Private Attorneys General Act—and that the defendants removed both cases to federal court. The court later ordered the cases consolidated under Case No. 25-cv-10416-NW.

Brown worked for Imperfect Foods as a delivery driver during two periods: December 2020 to November 2022, and January 2024 to March 2025. He stated that no union existed during his first period of employment. During the gap between his two periods of employment, employees gained the opportunity to join a union. Brown said he chose not to join, never paid union dues, and resigned rather than join when he understood that joining was required for his return after leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Removal and Section 301 preemption

The defendants removed the case on December 4, 2025, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Section 301 can preempt state-law claims that depend on rights created by a collective bargaining agreement or require interpretation of that agreement. The court applied a two-step test.

First, the court asked whether Brown’s claims asserted rights that existed only because of the collective bargaining agreement. The defendants argued that Brown was covered because he was a delivery driver within the bargaining unit’s geographic area, regardless of whether he belonged to the union. The court noted, however, that the agreement allowed some work to be performed by non-bargaining-unit employees. The defendants did not reconcile that provision with Brown’s statements that he was not covered and did not provide evidence rebutting those statements. Because the defendants had the burden to justify removal, and ambiguities were resolved in favor of returning the case to state court, the court found that Brown’s claims did not assert rights existing solely because of the agreement.

Second, the court asked whether resolving Brown’s state-law rights required substantial analysis of the collective bargaining agreement. The defendants argued that Brown’s minimum-wage, overtime, meal-period, and rest-period claims required interpreting the agreement. The court rejected that argument because Brown sought rights under the California Labor Code, not rights under the agreement. It found that he could establish those rights without relying on or interpreting the agreement. The court therefore held that the claims were not preempted under Section 301.

Disposition

Because the claims were not preempted, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Brown’s motion to remand and remanded the action to Santa Clara Superior Court. The court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot. The order was issued by United States District Judge Noél Wise.