Hampton

Hampton v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States & Canada

Good Law
8 F. App'x 677
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 2001No. 00-55769; D.C. No. CV-99-09388-JSLCalifornia270 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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…

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.