French v. Davis

Ninth Circuit

French v. Davis

325 F. App'x 574

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2009

DocketNo. 08-55077

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F. App'x 574 (French v. Davis) 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

French v. Davis, 325 F. App'x 574 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

As the master of the complaint, French chose to sue on the basis of his alleged [575]*575contract with Heschong. That another remedy may have existed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) does not support complete federal preemption. Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 98 (1994). Nor does the “bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted” have preemptive force. Id. at 124, 114 S.Ct. 2068.

French alleges four tort claims against Davis and Brace. Resolution of none of these claims requires application or interpretation of the CBA between French’s union and Beachwood Services. Federal jurisdiction was therefore lacking. The case must be returned to the state court where it properly began and belongs. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with direction to return it to the Los Angeles Superior Court where it began.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

As the master of the complaint, French chose to sue on the basis of his alleged [575]*575contract with Heschong. That another remedy may have existed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) does not support complete federal preemption. Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 98 (1994). Nor does the “bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted” have preemptive force. Id. at 124, 114 S.Ct. 2068.

French alleges four tort claims against Davis and Brace. Resolution of none of these claims requires application or interpretation of the CBA between French’s union and Beachwood Services. Federal jurisdiction was therefore lacking. The case must be returned to the state court where it properly began and belongs. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with direction to return it to the Los Angeles Superior Court where it began.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F. App'x 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-davis-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack