Carr v. Allied Waste Systems of Alameda County, 030811 FED9, 10-15092

Docket Nº:10-15092
Party Name:FRED C. CARR, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 08, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

FRED C. CARR, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15092

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 8, 2011

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 15, 2011[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-04675-PJH.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Fred C. Carr, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his state law action challenging the suspension of his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, preempts Carr's state law claims because they are "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract." Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213 (1985). Carr's contentions concerning California Labor Code section 2856 are unpersuasive.

The district court did not violate Carr's due process rights by striking his unauthorized surreply where Carr filed an opposition and was provided a hearing prior to dismissal. See SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard); see also N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-3(d) ("Once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval . . . .")...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP