Ali v. Giant Food LLC/Stop and Shop Supermarket, No. DKC 2008-2117.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. DKC 2008-2117.
• Citation: 595 F.Supp.2d 618
• Parties: Ahmed ALI v. GIANT FOOD LLC/STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

595 F.Supp.2d 618

Ahmed ALI v. GIANT FOOD LLC/STOP AND SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC, et al.

Civil Action No. DKC 2008-2117.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

January 12, 2009.

Donnell H. McNeal, Law Office of Donnell H. McNeal, Clarksville, MD, for Ahmed Ali.

Eric J. Janson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC, for Giant Food LLC/ Stop and Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this defamation action is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Giant Food, LLC ("Giant") and Thomas Saunders ("Saunders") (Paper 10), and a "second" motion to remand filed by Plaintiff Ahmed Ali ("Ali") (Paper 15)¹. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105. 6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's second motion to remand will be denied and Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied in part and granted in part.

I. Background

Plaintiff, a former Giant employee, filed an action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland on July 27, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by Defendant Thomas Saunders, Giant loss control manager, during an investigation into a theft that Plaintiff allegedly committed on February 11, 2008 while employed at Giant store # 152. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Saunders "knowingly communicated and otherwise published such false and defamatory comments about the Plaintiff stealing and/or otherwise embezzling company property/merchandise to the management staff at [Giant] store # 152...." (Paper 1, ¶ 49). Plaintiff further alleges that as a result of Defendants' conduct, he was terminated from both Giant and another job with Edy's Grand Ice Cream ("Edy's"), and suffered economic and emotional damages. (Id. ¶ 50).

Defendants removed the action to this court, asserting federal preemption based on § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Defendants then moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that removal to federal court was improper because his defamation claim does not trigger any federal question and is not otherwise preempted by federal law.

II. Motion to Remand

A. Standard of Review

It is well-settled that the removing party bears the burden of proving proper removal. Greer v. Crown Title Corp., 216 F.Supp.2d 519 (D.Md.2002)(citing Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994)). On a motion to remand, the court must "strictly construe the removal statute and resolve all doubts in favor of remanding the case to state court," indicative of the reluctance of federal courts "to interfere with matters properly before a state court." Richardson v. Phillip Morris Inc., 950 F.Supp. 700, 701-02 (D.Md.1997)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mulcahey, 29 F.3d at 151.

B. Analysis

A United States district court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Removal jurisdiction is proper only if the action originally could have been brought in the district court. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987); Caudill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.C., 999 F.2d 74 (4th Cir.1993). Generally, whether any of the plaintiffs claims "arise under" federal law is determined by the application of the well-pleaded complaint rule. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). The rule provides that a state court claim may be removed to federal district court if it presents a federal question which appears on the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 391, 107 S.Ct. 2425. There are two exceptions to the general rule: (1) where the "complete preemption doctrine" applies; and (2) where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turns on some construction of federal law. Kight v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 334, 337 (E.D.Va.1999).

Defendants assert that this action was properly removed because Plaintiff's defamation claim is completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. Thus, Defendants argue that this court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim. In his motion for remand, Plaintiff asserts that removal was improper under both 28 U.S.C. § 1441, § 1446(c)(4), and because his defamation claim is not preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.

Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) provides, in relevant part:

Suits for violation of contracts between employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

It is settled law that any claims that require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") are completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA. "A state law claim is preempted when resolution of the claim `requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement,' Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-06, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988), or is `inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.'" Foy v. Giant Food Inc., 298 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir.2002)(quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985)); see also IBEW, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 863 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987)(noting that a state law claim is preempted when "[t]he nature and scope of the duty of care owed Plaintiff is determined by reference to the collective bargaining agreement"). "[R]egardless of how a plaintiff may label his claim, it is construed as a claim brought pursuant to § 301 of the LMRA and is properly removed." Taylor v. Giant Food, 438 F.Supp.2d 576, 581 (D.Md.2006)(citing Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557, 559-60, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126 (1968); McCormick v. AT & T Techs., Inc., 934 F.2d 531, 534 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1048, 112 S.Ct. 912, 116 L.Ed.2d 813 (1992)).

"[T]he question in preemption analysis is not whether the source of a cause of action is state law, but whether resolution of the cause of action requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement." McCormick, 934 F.2d at 535. Therefore, "[u]nder a proper preemption analysis ... the first step is to recognize the essential elements of the state law claims ... and against the elements so identified, determine whether the state law claim can be resolved without interpreting or depending on the proper interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement." Barbe v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 722 F.Supp. 1257, 1260 (D.Md.1989).

Here, to state a claim for defamation under Maryland law, Plaintiff must show that Defendants: (1) published a defamatory statement to a third person; (2) the statement was false; (3) Defendants were legally at fault for making the statement; and (4) Plaintiff suffered harm. Woodruff v. Trepel, 125 Md.App. 381, 391, 725 A.2d 612 (1999). "To prevail in an action under § 301 against either the employer or the union, an employee must ordinarily establish both that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement." Clayton v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 451 U.S. 679, 683 n. 4, 101 S.Ct. 2088, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981).

Defendants contend that Plaintiff's defamation claim is "inextricably tied" with management's rights and obligations under the CBA and is substantially dependent upon the interpretation and analysis of the CBA. Defendants assert that the court will need to determine whether Defendants had the right to conduct an investigation into the alleged theft and to "publish" the findings to Giant management. (Paper 10, at 6). Specifically, Defendants argue that under Article 2.1 of the CBA, Giant has the "authority and responsibility for management of the business, including ... direction and control of the work force." (Id. at 7). Defendants further argue that it has the right, under Article 10.2 of the CBA, to discipline and discharge employees only "for good cause, including proven dishonesty." (Id.). Defendants maintain that the CBA not only permits management to set certain rules and policies to direct and control employees, but implicitly requires that management conduct an investigation into any misconduct that might warrant discipline or discharge to determine whether there is "good cause." (Id.).

Plaintiff erroneously cites Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 25, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977), to support his contention that the defamation claim is not preempted. (Paper 15, at 2). In the context of a § 301 case, the test set forth in Allis-Chalmers applies. See Willis v. Reynolds Metals Co., 840 F.2d 254, 255 (4th Cir.1988). Thus, the inquiry is, as noted above, whether evaluation of the state tort action is inextricably intertwined with the CBA. Allis-Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904. Defendants point out two particularly instructive cases where a former employee's slander and defamation claims were held preempted by the LMRA under the test set forth in Allis-Chalmers.

In Willis, Willis filed a slander claim against her former employer, Reynolds Metals. Willis alleged that her employer slandered her by informing the personnel manager and union representative that Willis was allegedly harassing her coworkers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Willis's claims, affirming the district...