{"id":499,"date":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=499"},"modified":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","slug":"marquez-republic-national-cd-cal-nlra-preemption-dismiss-remand-cfra-wrongful-termination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=499","title":{"rendered":"Marquez v. Republic National Distributing \u2014 C.D. Cal. Dismisses NLRA-Preempted Claims, Then Remands the Rest of the Wrongful-Termination Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Daniel Marquez v. Republic National Distributing Company, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-21<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-02937-JGB<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
NLRA preemption, LMRA section 301, wrongful termination, CFRA, kin-care leave, removal, supplemental jurisdiction, complete preemption<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Daniel Marquez sued Republic National Distributing Company, his individual supervisor, and other defendants in San Bernardino County Superior Court, asserting twelve California labor-related claims: associational discrimination under FEHA, retaliation under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), retaliation for protected activity, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation for exercising labor code rights, retaliation for exercising kin-care leave rights, failure to pay final wages, inaccurate wage statements, recordkeeping failures, employment records on request, individual wage-violation liability, and unfair business practices.<\/p>\n

Defendants removed the case to federal court arguing complete preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and \u00a7 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Plaintiff moved to remand. Defendants moved to dismiss claims four (wrongful termination), five (retaliation under Labor Code \u00a7 98.6), and six (retaliation for kin-care leave) as preempted by the NLRA. Plaintiff never opposed the motion to dismiss or replied to defendants\u2019 remand opposition.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted both motions in a tidy two-step. First, because Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss as required by Local Rule 7-9, the court treated the NLRA-preemption arguments as conceded under Caravan Canopy v. Home Depot and granted the motion as to claims four, five, and six.<\/p>\n

Second, with the only federal hook removed (the NLRA-preempted claims that defendants had cited as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction), the court granted Plaintiff\u2019s motion to remand. The remaining claims were all state-law causes of action under FEHA, CFRA, the California Labor Code, and the Unfair Competition Law, with no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Following the standard rule that doubts about removal are resolved in favor of remand, the court returned the case to San Bernardino Superior Court for resolution of the surviving state-law claims.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n