Clifford v. American Drug Stores, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Clifford v. American Drug Stores, Inc.

36 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2002

DocketNo. 00-56744; D.C. No. CV-00-00731-DOC

StatusPublished

This text of 36 F. App'x 594 (Clifford v. American Drug Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clifford v. American Drug Stores, Inc., 36 F. App'x 594 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

American Drug Stores (ADS) appeals an award of attorney’s fees to Benissa Clifford upon remand of her complaint alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. We have jurisdiction, see Stuart v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 217 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm because the connection between Clifford’s state-law claims and ADS’s ERISA plan is too tenuous to trigger preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). See Campbell v. Aerospace Corp., 128 F.3d 1308’ (9th Cir.1997); cf. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 140, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); Tingey v. Pixley-Richards West, Inc., 953 F.2d 1124, 1130-33 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the remand order was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

American Drug Stores (ADS) appeals an award of attorney’s fees to Benissa Clifford upon remand of her complaint alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. We have jurisdiction, see Stuart v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 217 F.3d 1145, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm because the connection between Clifford’s state-law claims and ADS’s ERISA plan is too tenuous to trigger preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). See Campbell v. Aerospace Corp., 128 F.3d 1308’ (9th Cir.1997); cf. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 140, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990); Tingey v. Pixley-Richards West, Inc., 953 F.2d 1124, 1130-33 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the remand order was proper and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-american-drug-stores-inc-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack