Nelson v. Foster Poultry Farms ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL NELSON, No. 1:21-cv-00222 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 21) 14 FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Michael Nelson is a former employee of the defendants. He filed a complaint in Merced 18 County Superior Court seeking to hold the companies liable for claims related to disparate 19 treatment, discrimination, and wrongful termination. (See generally Doc. 1 at 18-46.) Plaintiff 20 requests the Court remand the matter to the state court. (Doc. 8.) In addition, Plaintiff requested 21 dismissal of his seventh and eighth causes of action related to oral agreements “not to terminate 22 employment without good cause.” (Id. at 24-25.) 23 The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge, who issued Findings and 24 Recommendations on March 31, 2022. (Doc. 21.) The magistrate judge noted it was undisputed 25 that at the time of termination, Plaintiff “was a member of a labor union, and a collective 26 bargaining agreement governed the terms of his employment.” (Id. at 5.) The magistrate judge 27 found Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor 28 Management Rights Act, and Defendants’ removal was proper. (Id. at 5-6.) In addition, the 1 | magistrate judge observed that Rule 41(a) was “not the proper mechanism for a plaintiff to 2 | dismiss some but not all claims against a particular defendant.” (Doc. 21 at 7.) Instead, the 3 | magistrate judge noted such a request should be made under Rule 15(a). (/d., citing, Gen. Signal 4 | Corp v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 66 F.3d 1500, 1513 (9th Cir. 1995).) Therefore, the magistrate 5 || judge recommended: (1) dismissal of the seventh and eight causes of action be denied and (2) the 6 || motion to remand be denied. (Jd. at 8.) 7 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties, which contained 8 | notice that any objections were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Doc. 21 at 8.) The Court 9 | advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 10 | waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d., quoting 11 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the time 12 | in which to do so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 14 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes that the Findings and 15 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 31, 2022 (Doc. 21) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 8) is DENIED. 19 3. Plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal of his seventh and eighth causes of 20 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is DENIED. 21 4. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 18, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28