Shwiyat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-00283
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Shwiyat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Judge Corley ordered the defendant to explain its federal jurisdiction or risk dismissal.
Austin Shwiyat and Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.; the defendant was required to provide the collective bargaining agreements it relied on and explain why the case should remain in federal court.
What happened
In Shwiyat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Austin Shwiyat sued under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, and Martin Marietta Materials removed the case to federal court. The company argued that federal law governing labor agreements completely replaced some state-law claims.
The court was not satisfied that federal jurisdiction existed. The complaint did not mention a union or collective bargaining agreements, and the company had not provided evidence showing that the claims were covered by those agreements.
Judge Corley ordered Martin Marietta Materials to provide the agreements it relied on by April 20, 2023, and to explain in writing by May 15, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Shwiyat v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-00283
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
Austin Shwiyat sued Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. in California state court under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code section 2698 and following sections. Martin Marietta removed the case to federal court, relying on federal-question jurisdiction and arguing that the Labor Management Relations Act completely preempted the PAGA claim for some employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.
The defendant said that employees in Alameda County were covered by agreements between Martin Marietta and Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. It argued that those agreements affected claims involving overtime, meal periods, and rest periods.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must independently determine whether jurisdiction exists. A party removing a case from state court bears the burden of showing that removal is proper, and doubts about removal jurisdiction are resolved against removal.
The court described the two-part test for preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. First, the court asks whether the asserted right comes from state law or exists only because of a collective bargaining agreement. Second, if the right exists independently of the agreement, the court asks whether deciding the claim would substantially depend on interpreting the agreement.
The complaint did not mention a union, collective bargaining agreements, or facts supporting preemption. Martin Marietta also had not supplied evidence establishing preemption or even described the contents of the agreements on which it relied. The court therefore was not satisfied that the PAGA claim was preempted or that removal was proper.
Order
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Martin Marietta Materials to show cause in writing, by May 15, 2023, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It also ordered the defendant to provide Shwiyat, by April 20, 2023, with all collective bargaining agreements supporting its preemption argument. Judge Jacquelyn Corley signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.