It is a fight to level the playing field to be able to compete for jobs and careers on the basis of skills and make available apprentice training to all. In 1973 Al Percy launched a class action lawsuit to give workers like him a chance to better their lot in life. It would also ensure the availability of skilled workers to build the infrastructure of the future.
Who is Al Percy? What is the lawsuit?
A short video follows below. there are also helpful and informative links on this website
ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page98 22 ong>21ong> ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> ong>21ong> 27 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2359 1361 “Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court.” Caterpillar. Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). For removal based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff’s own cause ong>ofong> action is based on federal law as demonstrated on the face ong>ofong> a wellpleaded complaint.” Arrow Financial Servs. LLC v. Massil, No. 08- cv-437 (NGG), 2009 WL 348553, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2009). Because ong>ofong> this principle, courts routinely reject removal attempts made by third-party and intervenor litigants. See, e.g., Arrow Fin. Servs., 2009 WL 348553, at *2 (“It is clear . . . that the jurisdictionong>ofong> the district court over the claims ong>ofong> the plaintiffs is not enhanced by third party complaints.”); Childs v. Valente, No. 1:07- cv-18, 2007 WL 805820, at *1 (D. Vt. Mar. 15, 2007) (explaining that the intervenor litigant’s argument for removal “runs counter to substantial case law holding removal may not be predicated on an intervening petition or complaint”). The complete preemption doctrine is a corollary to the wellpleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 393. This doctrine provides that an action may not be removed on the basis ong>ofong> a federal defense, including a preemption defense, unless federal law completely preempts the relevant area ong>ofong> state law. Id. This doctrine authorizes removal in a limited set ong>ofong> circumstances, including when state law claims are completely preempted by Section 502 ong>ofong> ERISA. See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 204 (2004). Oriska and the Class Representatives contend that removal is proper under the complete preemption doctrine based on the claims in the original state court complaint, which they argue is an artfully pleaded attempt to recover million in fund benefits governed by ERISA. (See Class Opp. at 8-12.) This court does not have jurisdiction over the removed Nassau County Action. The operative Amended Complaint asserts only ong>21ong>
ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> 1:ong>21ong>-cv-01366-NGG-SJB 1:ong>21ong>-cv-014ong>21ong>-NGG ong>Caseong> ong>Caseong> MDL ong>21ong>-ong>1564ong>, No. 3011 ong>Docong>ument ong>Docong>ument 6, 2407/12/20ong>21ong>, 11 25-32 Filed Filed 06/25/ong>21ong> Filed 05/27/ong>21ong> 3135847, 06/24/ong>21ong> Page Page99 23 22 ong>ofong> ong>ofong> 28 ong>ofong> 227 PageID 104 ong>ofong> 27 #: #: 2360 1362 one state law cause ong>ofong> action for breach ong>ofong> contract, which is not preempted by federal law, and the voluntariness principal bars removal by parties introduced through intervention. (See Nassau County Action, ong>21ong>-cv-6291, Am. Compl. (Dkt. 9-4) ong>21ong>-25.) To hold otherwise would deprive plaintiffs ong>ofong> their right to decide where to bring their lawsuit. See Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 282 (1918). The apparent coordination between the intervenor and the defendants-in-intervention suggests a willful attempt to evade the plaintiffs’ choice ong>ofong> forum, in further violationong>ofong> the principle that plaintiffs, by virtue ong>ofong> their well-pleaded complaints, determine the removability ong>ofong> their cases. See id. It is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether this court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in the remaining seventeen Removed Actions. Because the remand issue can be resolved on procedural grounds, the court declines to decide the jurisdictional question presented in those actions. DISMISSAL OF THE FEDERAL ACTIONS A. Legal Standard District courts have the inherent authority “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious dispositionong>ofong> cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); see also Lewis v. Rawson, 564 F.3d 569, 575 (2d Cir. 2009). In addition, Federal Rule ong>ofong> Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a federal court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules ong>ofong> Civil Procedure] or a court order.” Smalls v. Cty. ong>ofong> Suffolk, 718 F. App’x 16, 19 (2d Cir. 2017), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Wright & Miller, 9 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2369 (4th ed.) (“The district judge is vested with wide discretion in determining when dismissal is appropriate to enforce matters ong>ofong> docket management.”). A court may order dismissal sua sponte or on defendant’s motion. See 22