Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 13-35528 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe three cases in this consolidated appeal involve employees represented by labor unions who seek remedies under state law against their employers. The cases were initially filed in state court, but then removed to federal court on the basis of preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185(a). In all the cases, the district court denied a motion to remand and held the state law claims preempted. At issue on appeal is section 301 preemption. The court articulated a two-step inquiry to analyze section 301 preemption of state law claims: first, a court must determine whether the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred upon an employee by virtue of state law, not by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA); and second, whether the right is substantially dependent on analysis of a CBA. Where there is such substantial dependence, the state law claim is preempted by section 301. If not, the claim can proceed under state law. In Kobold, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Good Samaritan. In Barr, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to RISG as to Barr’s money had and received claim, but reversed as to plaintiffs’ Or. Rev. Stat. 652.610(4) and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and remanded to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the section 652.610(4) and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In Allen, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Allen’s motion to remand as well as its grant of summary judgment to NWP.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel ordered consolidated three appeals involving employees represented by labor unions who sought remedies under state law against their employers; affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer in the first appeal; affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part in the second appeal; and affirmed in the third appeal. In all three cases, there was a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the union and the employer setting out a grievance and arbitration procedure to govern disputes arising under the agreement. And in all three, a grievance was filed but did not provide full relief, prompting the employee to turn to the courts. All the employees initially filed their cases in state court, but the cases were removed to federal court on the basis of preemption under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. In all the cases, the district court denied a motion to remand and held the state law claims preempted. A state law claim is preempted if it either involves a right conferred upon an employee solely by virtue of a CBA or is substantially dependent on analysis of a CBA. In the first case, the panel held that assuming Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 652.120 and 652.615 conferred upon a nurse the right to receive premium pay for extra shifts worked, that right was KOBOLD V. GOOD SAMARITAN REG’L MED. CTR. 5 substantially dependent on an analysis of the terms of a CBA in order to determine which shifts qualified for premium pay. Accordingly, the state law claims were preempted by § 301. The plaintiff could not pursue her claims under § 301 because she did not exhaust her remedies under the CBA and did not allege that her union breached its duty of fair representation. In the second case, the panel reversed in part, holding that claims for violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610(4) (establishing time limits regarding CBA-authorized paycheck deductions) and breach of fiduciary duty were not preempted. The panel affirmed as to a claim for money received. The panel concluded that § 652.610(4) conferred a right independent of the plaintiffs’ rights under a CBA, and this right was not substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA. The breach of fiduciary duty claim also was not preempted, but the claim for money received was not independent of the CBA and therefore was preempted. The panel remanded for the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-preempted claims. In the third case, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to remand and its grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The panel held that judicial estoppel did not bar the plaintiff, a nurse practitioner, from arguing for remand to state court on the ground that a CBA did not govern a credentialing decision because the contrary position had been taken by the plaintiff’s union, not the plaintiff herself, during arbitration. The panel held that in light of the arbitrator’s decision that the credentialing decision must be evaluated under the CBA, the plaintiff’s claim for intentional interference with economic relations arose out of the CBA, and thus was preempted. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment on a non- 6 KOBOLD V. GOOD SAMARITAN REG’L MED. CTR. preempted defamation claim, the panel held that the claim was time-barred.
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.