Namit Bhatnagar v. Medco Health, LLC, 691 F. App'x 420

Plaintiff Namit Bhatnagar sued employer Medco Health, LLC; parties’ factual background not recited in opinion.
District court originally dismissed the action; this Court remanded to allow the district court to determine subject matter jurisdiction.
On remand, the district court concluded it had federal-question jurisdiction under LMRA §301 preemption and again granted Medco’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute after Bhatnagar did not timely respond.
Bhatnagar argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because his claims did not require interpretation of the applicable collective bargaining agreements and that he lacked access to the grievance process.
Bhatnagar also moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, asserting he never received a minute order notifying him of the dispositive motion, but conceded he received the motion itself and knew a timely response was required.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and review of dismissal and denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction because claims are preempted by LMRA §301	Bhatnagar: claims not preempted; do not require interpretation of CBA; grievance process unavailable to him	Medco: claims substantially depend on interpretation/enforcement of the 1997 or 2007 collective bargaining agreements and thus are §301 matters	Court: §301 preemption applies; district court had jurisdiction
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute and denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	Bhatnagar: procedural defect — he did not receive the minute order notifying him of the dispositive motion	Medco: Bhatnagar received the motion and knew a timely response was required; failure to respond warranted dismissal	Court: No abuse of discretion; dismissal and denial of reconsideration affirmed

Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for subject matter jurisdiction)
Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001) (§301 preemption of state contract claims requiring CBA interpretation)
Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (1962) (preemption of state law contract claims by federal labor law)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (claims substantially dependent on CBA analysis are preempted)
Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851 (1987) (scope of §301 preemption)
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for review of motion for reconsideration)