Retail Prop. Trust v. UBCJA, No. 12-56427 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe Mall filed suit in state court alleging state-law claims for trespass and nuisance. The Union removed to federal court on the ground that the Mall had alleged the equivalent of unlawful secondary boycott activity in violation of the section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 187. At issue was whether section 303 preempts state-law claims for trespass and private nuisance related to union conduct that may also constitute secondary boycott activity. The court held that federal law does not so thoroughly occupy the field that it always preempts such claims, nor does it conflict with the state law claims in this case. Where state claims of trespass and nuisance touch interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility, and the plaintiff seeks only to enforce time, place, and manner restrictions against union protesters, the court was unwilling to presume that Congress intended to deprive the California courts of jurisdiction to hear the nuisance and trespass actions. The court found the Seventh Circuit's decision contrary to precedent and disagreed with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Smart v. Local 702 Intl' Bhd. of Elec. Workers. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of defendant's motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Labor Law. Reversing the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss state-law claims and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and affirming the dismissal of a federal claim, the panel held that § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act did not preempt state-law claims for trespass and private nuisance related to union activity that may also have constituted secondary boycott activity. Disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that federal law does not so thoroughly occupy the field that it always preempts such claims. The panel held that the LMRA did not conflict with the plaintiff mall owner’s trespass and nuisance claims because the claims touched interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility, and the plaintiff sought only to enforce time, place, and manner restrictions against union protesters. The panel remanded the case to the district court for consideration of the state-law claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.