993 F.3d 757
9th Cir.2021Background
- The Service Employees International Union (International) placed its Nevada affiliate (the Local) into a trusteeship after internal disputes and a hearing recommended trusteeship; the Local Board had voted to request trusteeship following meetings with International representatives.
- Raymond Garcia, a Local member, sued in state court alleging the trusteeship violated the Local Constitution, the International Constitution, and an Affiliation Agreement between the Local and International.
- The Affiliation Agreement contained a waiver provision that the parties disputed: Garcia alleged it preserved certain Local constitutional protections and waived some International trusteeship powers.
- The Union removed the case to federal court; the district court dismissed in part, concluding five claims (breach by International, breach of implied covenant, negligent misrepresentation, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty) were preempted by §301 of the LMRA and thus converted into §301 claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held §301 completely preempts state-law claims that require interpretation of labor contracts between unions (including union constitutions), the LMRDA savings clauses did not negate §301’s preemptive effect, and the converted claims were properly within federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §301 preempts state-law claims based on union constitutions | Garcia: Suits enforcing union constitutions are not governed by §301 and may proceed in state court | Union: Union constitutions are contracts between labor organizations and fall under §301 preemption | §301 completely preempts state-law claims based on union constitutions to the extent the constitution is a contract between labor organizations |
| Whether LMRDA savings clauses revived state-law remedies preempted by §301 | Garcia: LMRDA savings clauses preserve state claims to enforce union constitutions | Union: LMRDA does not repeal or displace §301’s preemptive force | LMRDA savings clauses do not repeal §301 preemption and cannot be read to revive preempted state-law claims |
| Whether Garcia’s pleaded claims required interpretation of labor contracts (Affiliation Agreement/Constitution) | Garcia: Claims (misrepresentation, malpractice, fiduciary duty) can proceed on state-law grounds without interpreting contracts | Union: The Affiliation Agreement and constitutions are central; resolving claims requires interpreting those documents | Five claims required interpretation of §301 labor contracts and were therefore preempted and treated as §301 claims |
| Whether federal court had jurisdiction after removal/conversion | Garcia: Case should remain in state court for non-federal claims | Union: Complete preemption converts those state claims into federal claims and removal is proper | Ninth Circuit affirmed federal jurisdiction over converted §301 claims and supplemental jurisdiction over remaining pendant state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (complete preemption doctrine converts certain state claims into federal questions)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557 (§301 preemption and removal of state-law contract claims concerning labor relations)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (state claims preempted when they require interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (character of the claim—contract-based or independent—governs preemption analysis)
- Wooddell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 71, 502 U.S. 93 (union constitutions are important labor contracts)
- United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Local 334, 452 U.S. 615 (union constitution is a contract within §301 meaning)
- Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 (narrow definition of "interpret" in preemption analysis)
- Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024 (two-step test for §301 preemption applied)
- Newberry v. Pac. Racing Ass’n, 854 F.2d 1142 (inquiry whether claim arises under §301 controls preemption determination)
- Kinney v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 669 F.2d 1222 (member may bring §301 claim for violation of union constitution)