Background
Anthony Colbourne, a former nonexempt Sysco San Diego driver, filed a putative representative wage-and-hour action in California court. Sysco removed the case, and Colbourne sought remand under the federal removal statute.
The complaint combined an individual unpaid-wages theory with claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which permits an employee to seek civil penalties on the state’s behalf for Labor Code violations affecting the employee and others.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand. It concluded that at least one claim fell within original federal jurisdiction and that the remaining PAGA theories arose from the same core employment facts, including the same work period and alleged wage practices.
Because those claims formed part of the same case or controversy, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA claims as well. The decision keeps the entire action in federal court without resolving the merits of the alleged Labor Code violations.
Key Takeaways
- Removal analysis proceeds claim by claim, but one jurisdictionally sufficient claim can anchor related state-law theories.
- PAGA claims may remain under supplemental jurisdiction when they share operative employment facts with a claim properly in federal court.
- A remand motion must address both original and supplemental jurisdiction.
- Denial of remand determines forum, not whether the employer violated wage law.
Why It Matters
The forum can materially affect scheduling, discovery, motion practice, and settlement strategy in California wage cases. Employers removing mixed wage-and-PAGA actions should identify the jurisdictional anchor and explain the factual overlap; employees seeking remand should attack both parts of that showing.
The ruling also illustrates that recent limits on federal jurisdiction over some representative claims do not necessarily require splitting a factually unified case.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket