Hampton v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of U.S. and Canada

Full title: Adonis HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 2001

8 F. App'x 677 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

8 Fed.Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2001) Adonis HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Laboratory Film/Video Technicians of the Motion Picture and Television Industries, Local # 683, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-55769. D.C. No. CV-99-09388-JSL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 18, 2001

Submitted April 9, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Union member brought suit against union in state court for breach of duty of fair representation. After action was removed, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, J. Spencer Letts, J., denied motion to remand, and granted summary judgment to union. Member appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) action was barred by six-month statute of limitations, and (2) action arose under federal law and was not subject to remand.

Affirmed.

Page 678.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Adonis Hampton appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in Hampton's intentional misrepresentation action. Hampton also appeals the district court's denial of his motion to remand to state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo grants of summary judgment, see Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 952, 120 S.Ct. 375, 145 L.Ed.2d 293 (1999), and denials of motions to remand, see Cantrell v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

The statute of limitations for bringing a claim against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation is six months. Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1251 (9th Cir.1985). The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because Hampton filed his action outside of the statute of limitations. See DelCostello v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983).

Because Hampton's action is based on federal labor law, the district court properly denied Hampton's motion to remand. See Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 820 F.2d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.1987).

We need not consider Hampton's contention regarding a conflict of interest with the defendant's counsel because Hampton did not raise this issue before the district court. See Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.