Carman Delapp v. Continental Can Company, Inc.

Good Law
868 F.2d 1073·1989 WL 15816·130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2900·4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 330·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2180
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 28, 198987-3707California1,775 words

Opinion

Opinion

Canby, J.

Carman DeLapp appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Continental Can Company. DeLapp originally brought this breach of contract action in state court, but Continental Can subsequently removed it to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 185 . A jury determined that an oral agreement had been reached between Continental Can and DeLapp and that Continental Can had breached the agreement. The district court granted Continental Can’s petition for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that the individual oral agreement between the parties was unenforceable in the face of a collective bargaining agreement that governed the same benefits. We affirm.

FACTS

DeLapp worked for Continental Can as a maintenance machinist in Continental’s Seattle machine shop facility. DeLapp and the other employees at this facility were represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and were covered by a master agreement negotiated between the union and Continental Can. Among other things, the master agreement provided that an employee would be…

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.