Bosnak v. The Olympic Club

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GREGG S. BOSNAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE OLYMPIC CLUB,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-03400-RFL
ORDER REMANDING CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 25
The Olympic Club removed this wage-and-hour and retaliation lawsuit raising only state
law claims to federal court, contending that there is federal question jurisdiction because the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”) preempts some of Gregg S. Bosnak’s
claims. The Court identified a potential lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered Olympic
Club to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court. For the reasons stated
below, the case is REMANDED. This order assumes the reader is familiar with the facts of the
case, the applicable legal standards, and the parties’ arguments.
The LMRA preempts state law claims if (1) “the asserted cause of action involves a right
. . . [that] exists solely as a result of the CBA” or (2) the claim is “substantially dependent on
analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053,
1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). This Court has previously concluded that under Curtis
v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019), claims that fall within Cal. Lab. Code § 514
and similar exemptions are preempted at step one of the Burnside test, and therefore give rise to
federal question jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine. See, e.g., Hooks v. S.F.
Opera Ass’n, No. 23-CV-04703-RFL, 2024 WL 1091189, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2024);
Case 3:26-cv-03400-RFL Document 28 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Radford v. Nexstar Broad., Inc., No. 24-CV-08118-RFL, 2025 WL 829601, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 14, 2025). However, a growing minority of courts have persuasively concluded that Curtis
did not and could not have held that Section 514 gives rise to the complete preemption doctrine.
Cortes v. Mass Elec. Constr. Co., No. 25-CV-06714-JSC, 2025 WL 3685194, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 18, 2025); see also Hernandez v. Pac. Underground Constr., Inc., 794 F. Supp. 3d 696,
705–06 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Sica v. Silicon Valley Mech., Inc., No. 26-CV-00180-VC, 2026 WL
1379906, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2026). Those courts reason that Section 514 constitutes an
affirmative defense under California law, and both the Supreme Court and prior Ninth Circuit
panels squarely held that “the presence of a federal question, even a § 301 question, in a
defensive argument does not overcome the paramount policies embodied in the well-pleaded
complaint rule.” See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 398–99 (1987); Cortes, 2025
WL 3685194, at *4–5. Curtis could not overrule that precedent. In light of the growing minority
view, the Court is persuaded that its prior reasoning was incorrect, and that Olympic Club’s
anticipated defense of Section 514 cannot create federal question jurisdiction.
Olympic Club alternatively argues that some of Bosnak’s claims are preempted at step
two of the Burnside test because they will require interpretation of the relevant CBA. To the
extent that it contends that this interpretation is necessary to determine if Section 514 applies,
that argument cannot give rise to jurisdiction for the reasons discussed above. And to the extent
that Olympic Club contends that the elements of Bosnak’s claims require interpretation of the
CBA, it has not identified any “active dispute” over the meaning of the CBA’s terms. See
Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 921 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Though
Bosnak’s claims might require “refer[ring] to the pay rates listed in the CBAs to identify the
applicable regular rate of pay,” that “does not trigger § 301 preemption.” Renteria-Hinojosa v.
Sunsweet Growers, Inc., 150 F.4th 1076, 1090 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted). Nor do the
dispute resolution procedures in the CBA provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. Id. at 1091–95.
As a result, Bosnak’s claims are not preempted at step two.
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of
Case 3:26-cv-03400-RFL Document 28 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
San Francisco. The Clerk of Court shall close the file in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-03400-RFL Document 28 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3