Herrera v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers

Tenth Circuit

Herrera v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers

73 F.3d 1056

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1996

DocketNo. 94-3301

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 F.3d 1056 (Herrera v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herrera v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers, 73 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

This dispute arose out of an alleged agreement between defendants General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and the United Auto Workers (“UAW”) to reduce the number of slots in a job security program. Plaintiffs John P. Herrera, III, and Deborah Herrera, GM employees and UAW members, asserted claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq., the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and plaintiffs appeal. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review the district court’s order of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). In so doing, we examine the factual record and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id.

After careful review of the record, we adopt the analysis in the Memorandum and Order of the district court. Herrera v. UAW, 858 F.Supp. 1529 (D.Kan.1994). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

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

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

This dispute arose out of an alleged agreement between defendants General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and the United Auto Workers (“UAW”) to reduce the number of slots in a job security program. Plaintiffs John P. Herrera, III, and Deborah Herrera, GM employees and UAW members, asserted claims under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq., the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and plaintiffs appeal. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review the district court’s order of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir.1990). In so doing, we examine the factual record and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id.

After careful review of the record, we adopt the analysis in the Memorandum and Order of the district court. Herrera v. UAW, 858 F.Supp. 1529 (D.Kan.1994). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 F.3d 1056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-international-union-united-automobile-aerospace-agriculture-ca10-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack