Bosnak v. The Olympic Club
- Joseph Spero
- 3:26-cv-03400
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Bosnak v. The Olympic Club, Judge Lin ordered the Club to explain why the case should not return to state court for lack of jurisdiction.
Gregg S. Bosnak and The Olympic Club. The order requires The Olympic Club to explain why the case should remain in federal court and permits Bosnak to respond; it does not yet decide whether the case will be remanded.
What happened
Gregg S. Bosnak brought wage-and-hour and retaliation claims under state law in state court against The Olympic Club. The Club removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal labor law replaced some of Bosnak’s state claims and created federal jurisdiction.
The court questioned that argument. It explained that some courts have viewed the relevant California wage-law provision as a defense under state law, which generally does not create federal jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint relies only on state law.
Judge Rita F. Lin ordered The Olympic Club to file a written explanation by October 5, 2026, stating why the case should not be sent back to state court. Bosnak may respond by October 13, 2026; the court did not yet order a remand.
The detailed version
- Bosnak v. The Olympic Club · No. 3:26-cv-03400
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 21, 2026
Background
Gregg S. Bosnak filed a wage-and-hour and retaliation lawsuit in state court asserting only state-law claims. The Olympic Club removed the case to federal court. It argued that the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) completely preempts some of Bosnak’s claims, creating federal-question jurisdiction.
The Club specifically relied on California Labor Code § 514, which exempts certain employees covered by qualifying collective bargaining agreements from some state wage requirements. The Club argued that Bosnak could not assert some claims under state law because of that provision, and that those claims were effectively claims under the collective bargaining agreement.
Jurisdictional Question
The court noted that it had previously concluded, relying on Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc., that claims falling within Section 514 and similar exemptions are preempted by the LMRA and can support federal jurisdiction under the complete-preemption doctrine. Complete preemption is the limited doctrine under which a federal law can convert what appears to be a state-law claim into a federal claim for jurisdictional purposes.
The court also noted that a growing minority of courts had persuasively concluded that Curtis did not and could not establish that Section 514 creates complete preemption. Those courts reasoned that Section 514 is an affirmative defense under California law. The opinion stated that the Supreme Court and earlier Ninth Circuit decisions held that a federal issue raised only as a defense generally does not overcome the rule that federal jurisdiction must ordinarily appear from the plaintiff’s own complaint. The court further stated that Curtis could not overrule that precedent.
Order
Judge Rita F. Lin ordered The Olympic Club to show cause, in a written statement of no more than five pages due October 5, 2026, why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bosnak may file a response of no more than five pages by October 13, 2026. The opinion does not itself order a remand or finally resolve the jurisdiction question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.