Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher J. Polite filed a putative class action against A.O. Reed & Co., LLC in California state court, alleging various wage and hour violations under California law. Polite, who worked as an hourly non-exempt welder from February to September 2025, brought claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class of all hourly non-exempt employees who worked for the defendant in California during the four years preceding the complaint. The defendant removed the case to federal court on August 20, 2026, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
The defendant argued that Polite's claims were preempted by Section 301 because their resolution substantially depended on interpreting collective bargaining agreements governing the terms and conditions of his employment. On October 6, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion requesting dismissal of the putative class claims without prejudice and remand of Polite's individual claims to state court. The parties represented that they had agreed to dismiss the class claims and that, following remand, Polite would pursue his individual claims in arbitration pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the request to dismiss the putative class claims without prejudice but denied the request for remand. The court explained that a case may be remanded to state court only for two authorized grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal procedure. The court emphasized that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or destroyed by the parties' agreement or waiver, citing established Ninth Circuit precedent.
The court found that the parties had not established a legal basis for remand beyond their mutual agreement. Neither party argued that removal was improper or that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The parties also failed to explain whether or how dismissal of the putative class claims would eliminate the asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction over Polite's remaining individual claims. The court noted that multiple courts have held that an agreement to remand between parties constitutes a ground not specified in the removal statute.
The court denied the remand request without prejudice. The court stated that any renewed motion shall identify the legal basis for the requested remand and clarify whether the parties contend that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or instead seek remand based on their agreement notwithstanding the existence of such jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Parties cannot obtain remand to state court simply by agreeing to it; they must establish a recognized legal basis such as lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in the removal procedure.
- A defendant who removes a case based on federal question jurisdiction and later seeks remand must explain how dismissal of certain claims affects the jurisdictional basis for the remaining claims.
- When parties seek remand after removal, they must clarify whether they contend the court lacks jurisdiction or whether they seek remand based on their agreement despite the existence of jurisdiction.
- A court may grant part of a joint motion while denying another part if the parties fail to establish a legal basis for the denied relief.
- A denial without prejudice does not itself grant leave to file a renewed motion; the court may separately state what any future motion must address.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that federal courts must have a statutory basis for remand and cannot simply defer to the parties' agreement. It serves as a reminder that removal jurisdiction is not subject to waiver or conferral by consent, and parties seeking remand must articulate a cognizable legal ground.
The ruling also highlights the procedural care required when parties seek to restructure litigation after removal. By denying the remand request without prejudice and specifying what any renewed motion must address, the court preserved the possibility of further proceedings while maintaining its obligation to ensure that jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.