Charme

MEMORANDUM *

Appellees contend that Du Charme was a union officer whose terms of employ *634 ment were embodied in IBEW’s constitution and Local 45’s bylaws. The notice of removal does not allege that Du Charme is a member of the IBEW or Local 45 or that his employment is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In their answers to the complaint, IBEW and Local 45 admitted that Du Charme was neither an officer nor an executive board member of the IBEW or Local 45. Under the doctrine of judicial admissions, “stipulations and admissions in the pleadings are generally binding on the parties and the Court. Not only are such admissions and stipulations binding before the trial court, but they are binding on appeal as well.” American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Ferguson v. Neighborhood Housing Services, 780 F.2d 549, 551 (6th Cir.1986)).

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a), completely preempts “most state-law actions that require interpretation of labor agreements.” Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Though a union’s constitution and…