Gutierrez v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-01469
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Gutierrez v. McNeilus, Judge Davila denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand their diversity case because no workers’ compensation subrogation claimant was a party.
Jose and Delfina Gutierrez and McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc.; the order kept the dispute in federal court and did not decide whether the injury claims were valid.
What happened
Jose and Delfina Gutierrez sued McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc. in California state court after Jose was injured while working with a garbage truck. McNeilus removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The Gutierrezes argued that California workers’ compensation law made the case impossible to remove. They relied on a law allowing Jose’s employer or workers’ compensation insurer to seek repayment of benefits from a third party.
Judge Davila denied the motion to remand. He ruled that the employer and insurer had not joined the case or asserted a repayment claim, and that the Gutierrezes’ negligence, products-liability, and loss-of-consortium claims did not arise under workers’ compensation law.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez v. McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc. · No. 5:19-cv-01469
- Edward Davila
- Oct. 21, 2019
Background
Jose Gutierrez was injured while working for Green Team of San Jose, a waste-disposal company. He fell twelve to fourteen feet from a garbage truck after a debris box slipped from the truck’s forks. Gutierrez applied for and received approximately $300,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.
Gutierrez and his spouse, Delfina Gutierrez, sued McNeilus Truck & Manufacturing, Inc., the designer and manufacturer of the garbage trucks, in California state court. Their claims were general negligence, products liability, and loss of consortium. McNeilus removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. The Gutierrezes moved to send the case back to state court.
Parties’ Arguments
The Gutierrezes argued that federal law prohibits removal of a state-court action arising under state workers’ compensation law. They relied on California Labor Code section 3852, which allows an employer that has paid workers’ compensation benefits—or an insurer—to bring a claim against a third party to recover those payments.
McNeilus argued that the removal restriction did not apply because neither Green Team nor the workers’ compensation insurer had asserted a subrogation claim or intervened in the case. The opinion states that the parties did not dispute diversity jurisdiction or the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an action arises under workers’ compensation law for purposes of the removal restriction when that law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action or is a necessary element of the claim. The Gutierrezes’ claims against McNeilus were based on negligence, products liability, and loss of consortium, not on California workers’ compensation law.
The court distinguished cases in which an employer or insurer had intervened or filed a claim under section 3852. In those cases, the workers’ compensation subrogation claim could not be removed from state court. Here, Green Team and the workers’ compensation insurer had not sought to intervene and were not parties. The court stated that either could later pursue a section 3852 claim in federal court.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The opinion did not decide the merits of the negligence, products-liability, or loss-of-consortium claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.