Crowder v. Purple Communications, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY CROWDER as an individual and No. 2:19–CV–00315–KJM–EFB on behalf of all other similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 PURPLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et 15 al., 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Mary Crowder moved to remand this action to Placer County Superior 19 Court on November 22, 2019. ECF No. 19. Defendants Purple Communications, Inc. and 20 CSDVRS, LLC filed a statement of non-opposition on December 6, 2019. ECF No. 20. The 21 court now GRANTS the motion. 22 The action was initially removed to this court because the putative class of 23 plaintiffs included class members covered by a collective bargaining agreement. State law claims 24 that require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement raise a federal question under 25 § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 26 (1987). 27 Plaintiff amended her complaint to expressly define the putative classes not to 28 include workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 1 17. Only state law claims are alleged. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 2 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 3 Because the complaint no longer shows a basis for federal jurisdiction, the court 4 hereby ORDERS the case to be remanded to Placer County Superior Court. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED 6 DATED: December 18, 2019. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28