Cole
Cole v. Teamster Local 70
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Rudolph Cole appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Teamster Local 70 (“Union”), in Cole’s Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a) action alleging that the Union violated its duty of fair representation in processing the grievance protesting his termination from United Parcel Service (“UPS”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Cole’s claims regarding the Union’s failure to file the additional grievances Cole presented to the Union in March and April 2003, and the Union’s failure to inform Cole of the cancellation of a July 2003 hearing in Seattle, were barred by the statute of limitations. See DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172 , 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) (the statute of limitations in duty of fair representation cases is six months); Galindo v. Stoody, 793 F.2d 1502 , 1509 (9th Cir.1986) (the statute begins to accrue when a claimant discovered or should have discovered the acts constituting the alleged breach).