Louise Newberry v. Pacific Racing Association and Tanforan Racing Association Peter W. Tunney, Individually and as Vice President and General Manager

Good Law
854 F.2d 1142·1988 WL 82188·129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2047·3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 959·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11028
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 10, 198887-2350California4,923 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldisert, J.

The major question for decision in this appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants is whether plaintiff’s state law claims against her employer for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional infliction of emotional distress are preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 . The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Louise Newberry’s claims brought under California law, ruling that section 301 preempted them. The court also held that Newberry failed to proffer sufficient evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on her state law claims of libel and blacklisting. We will affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.

Louise Newberry brought this action in state court against defendants Pacific Racing Association, Tanforan Racing Association, and Peter Tunney. She alleged that the defendants were liable in damages for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and blacklisting. The defendants removed the action to federal district court on the basis of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.