VanCourt v. APWU

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2004
• Docket: 03-30900
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 4, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 03-30900 Summary Calendar

NORMAN VAN COURT, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, New Orleans Local # 83; AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 03-CV-1670-K

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norman Van Court, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant

of the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his

suit for failure to state a claim. Van Court argues that the

district court erred in determining that his state-law claims were

preempted and that his suit was not timely filed. We conduct a

de novo review of a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. for failure to state a claim. Brown v. NationsBank Corp., 188 F.3d

579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court did not err in determining that

Van Court’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law.

Because Van Court’s claims arise from his allegation that the

defendants failed to diligently prosecute his grievance, these

claims are best construed as asserting that the defendants breached

the duty of fair representation (DFR) that they owed to Van Court.

See Landry v. The Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 880 F.2d 846,

852 (5th Cir. 1989); see also McNair v. U.S. Postal Service, 768

F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1985). A DFR claim arises under federal

law and preempts state-law claims. See Richardson v. United

Steelworkers of America, 864 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (5th Cir. 1989).

Further, the resolution of Van Court’s claims necessarily

involves an analysis of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

A state-law claim is preempted by federal law when, as here,

resolution of the claim is “inextricably intertwined with”

consideration of the terms of a CBA. See Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39

F.3d 611, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, Van Court’s state-law

claims are preempted both because they arise from an alleged breach

of the DFR and because resolution of these claims involves analysis

of the CBA.

The district court also did not err in determining that

Van Court’s suit was untimely. See Smith v. Int’l Org. of Masters,

Mates, and Pilots, 296 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2002). The fact

2 that Van Court chose not to sue his employer does not preclude

application of the six-month statute of limitations announced in

DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172, (1983),

to his suit. See Smith, 296 F.3d at 382.

Van Court has shown no error in the district court’s

judgment. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.