The panel affirmed the district court’s orders remanding two removed actions to state court after concluding that Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa’s remaining state law claims against her employer, Sunsweet Growers, Inc., were not preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

The panel held that it had jurisdiction to review the remand orders because, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the bar on appellate review of remand orders set forth in § 1447(d) applies only to remands based on a defect in removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties correctly agreed that the district court’s remand was not based on a defect in removal procedure. The panel concluded that the remand also was not based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, after dismissing federal § 301 untimely-wage claims for failure to exhaust grievance procedures under a collective bargaining agreement, the district court, in its discretion, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. The panel held that the exhaustion requirement for § 301 claims is not jurisdictional. In addition, where the district court exercised its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction, its remand order was not based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The panel therefore had jurisdiction to review the remand orders in their entirety, including the district court’s conclusions that Renteria-Hinojosa’s remaining state law claims were not federal § 301 claims.

The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the remaining claims were not preempted by § 301, which preempts a plaintiff’s state law claim where the claim (1) arises entirely from a collective bargaining agreement or (2) requires interpretation of the agreement. At step one, Renteria-Hinojosa’s claims did not arise exclusively from the parties’ collective bargaining agreements, but rather from California statutes and regulations prohibiting unfair business practices and retaliation and requiring employers to provide minimum wages, overtime pay, paid sick days, accurate itemized wage statements, reimbursement for necessary expenditures, meal and rest periods, and adequate seating. At step two, Renteria-Hinojosa’s claims for overtime pay, sick leave pay, and meal and rest breaks were not preempted because they did not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements. Sunsweet’s argument that all of Renteria-Hinojosa’s claims were preempted because of the dispute resolution provisions in the collective bargaining agreements was precluded by Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), which holds that a defendant cannot create removal jurisdiction under § 301 by invoking a collective bargaining agreement as a defense. The panel concluded that Renteria-Hinojosa’s claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act were not preempted.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to remand the remaining state law claims to state court, instead of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/14/23-3379.pdf