MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants removed this case from New York Supreme Court, County of New York, asserting that §301 and §303 of the Labor Management Relations act of 1947 (“LMRA) preempt Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that neither section §301 or §303 is implicated by its complaint. On a motion to remand, Defendants bear the burden of proving that removal was proper; they have failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and this case is remanded to New York Supreme Court.I. BACKGROUNDA. Factual BackgroundPlaintiff is the construction manager of the Hudson Yards Development Project (the “HYD”). Compl. (ECF. No. 3-2) 1. The Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (the “BCTC”) is an “umbrella organization comprised of representatives of approximately 15″ affiliated-member unions which participate in the BCTC though elected delegates. Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 27) at 4 (citing Compl. 24); BCTC’s Constitution and Bylaws (“BCTC’s Bylaws”) (ECF No. 28-1) art. III §§1, 5. Mr. LaBarbera is the President of the BCTC. Compl. 14.On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff “executed a site-wide project labor agreement (‘PLA’) with the BCTC and certain of its affiliated-member unions “permitting those unions to be hired for HYD’s Eastern Railyards construction (‘ERY’).” Pl.’s Mot. at 1; see Compl. 3. “The PLA only covers the building and construction trades and crafts work within the ERY at the HYD.” Compl. 26. “It does not cover 50 Hudson Yards, 55 Hudson Yards, the [Western Railyards construction], or any other portions of the HYD.” Id. Over time, the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants broke down due to conduct which Plaintiff alleges violated the PLA. Id.
29-71. Those alleged breaches are the subject of current and forthcoming arbitration pursued by Plaintiff under article 9 of the PLA. Id. 86.Due to the strained relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff decided not to negotiate another PLA with the BCTC, and instead Plaintiff “is bidding the project work and negotiating directly with individual trade contractors and their respective unions and trade councils” for the labor needed for the non-ERY portions of the HYD. Id. 73. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s decision not to negotiate another PLA, have engaged in activities designed to “force [Plaintiff] into signing a new PLA” with the BCTC. Id. 79. Plaintiff further alleges that those retaliatory acts include pressuring the BCTC’s affiliated-member unions to decline or terminate negotiations with Plaintiff regarding agreements as to non-ERY portions of the HYD. Id.
