Zarinfar

Zarinfar v. Boeing, Inc.

Good Law
26 F. App'x 772
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 6, 2002No. 01-55020; D.C. No. CV-00-02897-GAFCalifornia344 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Steven Zarinfar appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of The Boeing *773 Company. Zarinfar brought four claims against Boeing: (1) failure to maintain a safe workplace and refusal to provide medical treatment, (2) breach of contract, (8) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court held that, because Zarinfar admitted that his claims alleged safety violations covered by his collective bargaining agreement, all four of his claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a). The court held that claims one and four were additionally barred by California’s Workers’ Compensation Act, Cal. Lab.Code §§ 3200 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000), and affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary.

Zarinfar argues that Boeing’s “intentional, egregious, and outrageous” conduct in failing to…

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.