ROMERO v. DHL EXPRESS USA INC (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Mauricio Baez Romero (“Romero”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to his former employer, DHL Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Romero sued DHL in state court, alleging that, after firing him, DHL failed to pay out vacation and holiday pay to which he was entitled pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. DHL removed the action to federal district court. The District Court denied Romero’s motion to remand the action back to state court, reasoning that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted Romero’s breach of contract and state labor law claims. The District Court also granted DHL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, reasoning that Romero did not exhaust the required grievance procedures.

We review de novo the District Court’s denial of a motion to remand a removed action. Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 193-94 (2d Cir. 2005). We also review de novo a judgment on the pleadings, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016).

Upon review of the record, substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court, we conclude that the District Court properly denied Romero’s motion to remand to state court and granted DHL’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Romero on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the November 7, 2016 judgment of the District Court.