Darrin Erlichman v. Stater Bros. Markets ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRIN ERLICHMAN, No. 12-55797
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:10-cv-01803-CJC-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATER BROS. MARKETS; UNITED
FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
LOCAL UNION 324,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Darrin Erlichman appeals from the district court’s orders:
(1) denying his motion for additional discovery under Rule 56(d); (2) granting
summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee United Food and Commercial
Workers Local Union 324 (Local 324); and (3) granting summary judgment in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
favor of Defendant-Appellee Stater Bros. Markets (Stater). Because the parties are
familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those
facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.
After Local 324 moved for summary judgment, Erlichman opposed the
motion, claiming that under Rule 56(d) the district court should have permitted
discovery to continue. The discovery that Erlichman sought was not relevant to the
court’s resolution of Local 324’s summary judgment motion, and Erlichman has
not demonstrated “how allowing [the] discovery would have precluded summary
judgment.” Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Erlichman’s motion. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,
751 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Local 324
and properly denied Erlichman’s motion for relief from summary judgment. As to
Erlichman’s claim that Local 324 breached its duty of fair representation,
Erlichman failed to proffer evidence that Local 324’s conduct was “arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S.
362, 372 (1990). And Local 324 proffered evidence conclusively establishing that
the union acted within its discretion in determining how best to handle Erlichman’s
2
grievance. See Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 293 F.3d 1146,
1153–54 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Marino v. Writers Guild of Am., E., Inc., 992
F.2d 1480, 1486 (9th Cir. 1993). Erlichman’s claim that Local 324 breached the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement fails as a matter of law, because
Erlichman has not “point[ed] to language in the collective bargaining agreement
specifically indicating an intent to create obligations enforceable against the union
by [] individual employees.” United Steelworkers, 495 U.S. at 374.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Stater,
because the parties’ Settlement Agreement bars all claims against Stater. While
Erlichman argues that the agreement should be set aside because Local 324
breached a “fiduciary duty of loyalty” in executing the agreement, the collective
bargaining agreement does not create any such duty, and common law breach of
fiduciary duty claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act. Id. at 368–75; see also Audette v. Int’l Longshoremen’s &
Warehousemen’s Union, 195 F.3d 1107, 1112–13 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
3