Felix v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “Garmon preemption provides no basis for removal jurisdiction in federal court” and observing that “the lower courts are uniform in finding that Garmon preemption under the NLRA does not completely preempt state laws so as to provide removal jurisdiction”
• noting that the Supreme Court has recognized an exception or “independent corollary” to the well-pleaded complaint rule known as the “complete pre-emption” doctrine
• noting that some plaintiffs may be able to bring claims for equitable relief under the catch-all provision of s 502(a)(3)
• noting that federal-question jurisdiction exists when properly pleaded in a plaintiffs complaint
• explaining that if “complete preemption does not apply, but the plaintiffs state claim is arguably preempted ... the district court ... lacks power to do anything other than remand to the state court where the preemption issue can be addressed and resolved.”
• discussing Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004), and citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).