Zuniga v. Safeway, Inc.

Background

Norma Zuniga originally filed the action in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. Her complaint asserted six claims against Safeway, Inc. and Albertsons’ Companies, Inc., including a claim under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, California workplace-safety claims, negligence, gross negligence, fraudulent concealment of injury under California Labor Code section 3602(b)(2), and wrongful death.

The defendants removed the case to federal court. Zuniga then filed a First Amended Complaint in state court. The amended complaint deleted the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act claim and added claims for negligent undertaking and public nuisance. The parties stipulated that the amended complaint was the current operative pleading.

Zuniga brought the action for herself and as successor-in-interest to Pedro Zuniga, her deceased husband. She alleged that Pedro had worked for Safeway for approximately 22 years and died from COVID-19 complications on April 13, 2020. She further alleged that employees at Safeway’s distribution center became ill, that workers were required to continue working, and that employees who complained about dangerous conditions faced threats of discipline.

Federal Jurisdiction

The court explained that removal jurisdiction is generally assessed using the complaint in effect when the notice of removal was filed. It noted uncertainty about whether the original complaint or the First Amended Complaint was operative when removal became effective. The court concluded that this filing dispute did not determine the outcome.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act claim had been removed from the operative amended complaint, leaving only state-law claims. The court therefore considered whether those claims independently supported federal-question jurisdiction or whether it should retain them under supplemental jurisdiction, which permits a federal court to hear related state-law claims connected to claims within its original jurisdiction.

The defendants argued that the state-law claims raised a substantial federal issue because they referred to federal COVID-19 guidelines. The court rejected that argument. It held that the references to federal guidelines were not substantial, disputed, necessary, or essential to the claims, which could be supported by other allegations involving state and federal guidance, workplace conditions, employee complaints, and alleged failures to take protective measures.

The defendants also argued that the claims were preempted under section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act because resolving them would require interpreting a collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected that argument as well. It held that the defendants had not shown that deciding the claims would be substantially dependent on interpreting the agreement or that the state-law safety claim was necessarily displaced by the agreement’s workplace-safety provisions.

Attorney Fees and Disposition

Zuniga requested attorney fees and costs resulting from the removal. The court found that removal was unsupported but was not objectively unreasonable, and it denied the request for fees and costs.

The court granted Zuniga’s motion to remand because the remaining state-law claims in the operative amended complaint did not themselves provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. It denied the defendants’ motion to transfer venue as moot and directed the clerk to remand the action to the Superior Court of California for Alameda County.