Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 95-20666
Summary Calendar
_________________________
DANIEL RICHTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LINES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
__________________________________________________
March 22, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After injuring his back when he slipped and fell, Richter sued employer Merchants Fast Motor
Lines ("Merchants") in state court. Merchants removed the case to federal court, where summary
judgment was granted. Richter appeals both the removal and the grant of summary judgment.
Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Richter, a trucker for Merchants, slipped, fell, and permanently injured his back while fueling
his truck at the company pump. Pursuant to remedies provided in a Collective Bargaining Agreement
("CBA") executed by Merchants and the Union of Transportation Employees ("UTE"), Richter
received compensation benefits and payment of his medical expenses in connection with his injury.
Subsequently, Richter filed a petition in state court alleging negligence and gross negligence.
Merchants removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 (a), arguing that Richter's
Texas cause of action was completely preempted pursuant to §301 of the Labor and Management

Relations Act, (LMRA) 29 U.S.C. §185. The district court found that Richter's claim was properly
removed. The court also found that Richter's failure to pursue the grievance procedures mandated
by the CBA precluded his state-law suit. There being no material issues of fact, the court granted
Merchant's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law.
DISCUSSION
Richter argues that removal was inappropriate because his claim was not preempted by federal
law. Removal is appropriate where, although the action was brought in state court, a U.S. district
would have had original jurisdiction under either the Constituti on, treaties, or laws of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a).
The LMRA provides that:
Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor
organization representing employees in an industry affecting
commerce...may be brought in any district court of the United States
having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in
controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.
29 U.S.C. §185(a) (otherwise known as §301 of the LMRA).
Based on Supreme Court precedent, this court has held that this section establishes federal
preemption over conflicting state causes of action arising in both contract and tort, and that such
preemption occurs when a decision on the state claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration
of the terms of the labor contract or when the application of state law to a dispute requires
interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 616 (5th
Cir. 1994); Jones v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 931 F.2d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1991); Baker v. Farmers
Electric, 34 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 1994). To determine if adjudicating the claim requires interpreting
the terms of a CBA, a court is required first to analyze the elements of the tort at issue. Jones, 931
F.2d at 1089. As the lower court held, under Texas law, a cause of action for negligence is premised
on the existence of a legal duty, and whether an employer has a legal duty to the employee is a
2

question of law for the courts. Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W. 2d 523,
525 (Tex. 1990).
Richter argues that he brought his negligence claim under preexisting Texas workmen's
compensation law, and that it was not preempted because it is not substantially dependent upon
analysis of the terms of the CBA. The CBA at issue provides the exclusive remedy for settling
disput es involving negligence on the part of the Company, and provides that "in any proceeding
concerning an injury... sustained in the course of employment... the Company further agrees to waive
its common law defenses," thus the application of state law requires interpretation of the collective-
bargaining agreement. Moreover, the CBA itself adopts the Texas Workers' Compensation Act in
determining the benefits and compensation available to employees, therefore, a decision on Richter's
state claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract. Thus,
because Richter's state-law claim is preempted, the lower court did not err in refusing to remand his
claim to state court.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). We resolve factual
controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy. Little
v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994). Article 29 of the CBA provides that it be the
exclusive means for settling disputes involving on-the-job injuries for employees in Richter's position.
The CBA also provides that employees must exhaust the arbitration provisions before pursuing any
cause of action within the scope of the agreement, and negligence is specifically described as within
that scope. Such clauses are enforceable. Baker v. Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 34 F.3d 274
(5th Cir. 1994). Because Richter did not exhaust his remedies under the CBA, he is therefore
precluded from bringing suit. Therefore, because there are no issues of material fact, Merchants is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. AFFIRMED.
3