Henry Parra; Kay Parra; Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Ual Corporation; United Airlines; Stephen Wolfe; Markcollins; Bob Graves; Tom Sims; Ken Gibson; Joe Talaugon;edward Heinrich; Larry Coleman; Does 1 to 100,individually and Inclusive, Defendants-appellees, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 1996)

Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and BAIRD,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

The Parras appeal pro se from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellees, arguing that the court erred by holding that their state law claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-63, 181-88. We affirm.

The RLA precludes Mr. Parra's claims because they involve minor disputes arising out of or related to his employment disciplinary proceeding and are inextricably intertwined with the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement between his union and employer. See Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 114 S. Ct. 2239, 2243 (1994); Felt v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 60 F.3d 1416, 1419 (9th Cir. 1995); Melanson v. United Air Lines, Inc., 931 F.2d 558, 562 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 865 (1991). As for Mrs. Parra's loss of consortium claim, the preclusion of her husband's claims by the RLA bars her claim as well. Cf. Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-406 (1988) (state law claims requiring interpretation and application of collective bargaining agreement preempted by federal law); International Bhd. of Teamsters v. American Delivery Serv., 50 F.3d 770, 774 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1995) (same).

AFFIRMED.