Sunstone does not argue on appeal that the defamation claim was similarly precluded. Cf. Karnewie–Tuah v. Frazier, 757 N.W.2d 714, 722–24 (Minn.App.2008) (holding that a defamation claim against the employer's representative was preempted by federal law because the statements were made in the course of a grievance procedure under a CBA). Judgment was entered on October 29, 2010, and Moen served a notice of entry of judgment on November 2.

Local 10 attempts to analogize this case to several others in which non-contract state-law claims were dismissed as preempted under § 301 because the resolution of those state-law tort claims turned on the interpretation of a CBA. See Mem. in Supp. at 10-12 (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (1990) (fraud and negligence claims preempted); Karnewie-Tuah v. Frazier, 757 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (defamation, tortious interference, and disparagement claims); Boldt, 904 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2018) (disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act); Trustees of Twin City Bricklayers Fringe Benefit Funds v. Superior Waterproofing, Inc., 450 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. 2006) (fraudulent misrepresentation)). But those cases are distinguishable.