NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 06a0712n .06 Fi led : Sep te mb er 2 9, 20 06

05- 2414 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
RANDALL W . PEARS ON, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. UAW IN TERN ATION AL U NI ON , U AW LOC AL 140 , R OY W Y SE, and STEPH EN YO K I CH , jo in t ly a n d se ve ra ll y, Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, C OLE , and GIBBO NS, Circuit Judges.
PER C UR IA M. T h is c a se is b e fo re us on a p p e a l fo r th e se co n d tim e , fo llo wing a
re mand to the dis tr ic t cour t. It has a c onv olu ted p ro cedural his tor y i n bot h federa l and s tate
cour t , d a t i n g b a c k t o p l a i n t i ff R a n d a l l P e a rs o n ’ s re mo v a l fro m t h e o ffi c e o f p re s i dent of UAW Loc al 140 i n 1997. That his tor y is set out at len g th i n our pr ior opi nio n, Pea rson v. UA W Loc al 140 , N o. 05 -2 414, 2004 W L 950189 (6 th Ci r. Apr . 28, 2004) , and need not b e recited here. T here w e con clude d tha t the only rema ining claim w as base d on Pearso n’s all eg ati on th at the uni on had breache d it s fid uci ar y duty to him dur ing ev ents su rroundi ng h is re m o val f rom off ic e. Id. a t * * 8

. Th e fi d u c i a r y d u t y c l a i m w a s o r i g i n a l l y i n c l u d e d i n a lawsui t t hat P earson filed i n s tate cour t, and i t w as re mov ed to federal c our t by the defendants on th e g ro und that t he c lai m w as preempted by Sec ti on 301 of the Labo r05-2414

P e a r s o n v . U A W

- 2 - Ma nag ement R ela ti ons Act

. The di st rict c our t ag re ed th at t he c lai m w as preempted by fed eral l aw

a nd d i s mi s s ed i t w i th p rej ud i c e. W e fi nd n o er ror a nd a ffir m.
As t o t h e a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f fi d u c i a r y d u t y , t h e c o mp l a i n t s i mp l y a s s e rt e d, w it hout off er ing any

l eg al basi s, th at “ as sta ndi ng members o f the U AW Int er nati onal U nio n and Local 140, eac h defendant sto od i n a fid uci ar y rela ti onshi p of tr ust to P lai nti ff .” W hen l ater ask ed i n hi s d eposi ti on i f he w as aw are of “ any doc ument t hat e sta bli shes a fiduci ar y duty betw een y oursel f and the Inter nati onal U AW ,” the pla int iff repl ied , “ UAW co nst it uti on” and “L ocal by laws.” H e the n c it ed s peci fical lyt o t h e a rt ic les and sec ti ons of the c onst it uti on that “e sta bli shed a f idu ci ar y rel ati onshi p or . . . the kind of duti es betw een the Int er nati onal
or the presi dent of the Inter nati onal or the sec re tar

y /treasurer

of the I nter nati onal to loc al uni on officers” tanta mount to a fiduci ar y re lat ion shi p and re it erated that he w as “rely ing on [tho se provisions] in this law suit as [est ablishin g] a f iduciary relatio nship .” It is clea r to us,
as itw as to t he di str ic t c our t, that re sol uti on of the cl aimed breach of f idu ci ar y duty w oul d, the refore, ne cessarilyrequire an alysi s o f the UAW constitu tion to dete rmine w het her the re
w as a bas is for t he ass er ted fiduci ar

y re lat ion shi p. Itfoll ow s t hat t he s tate law cl aim w as preempted by

Sec ti on 301 and w as proper ly su bje ct to di smi ss al by the dis tr ic t c our

t.
In ou r prev iou s o pin ion , w e noted the Supreme C our t’ s l ong -s tandi ng r ule that“ [a] sta te l aw cl aim is preempted if resol uti on of the sta te l aw cl aim is su bst anti all y

depend ent
o n a n a lysis o f a § 3 0 1 co n tr a ct .” 2 0 0 4 W L 9 5 0 1 8 9 , at** 4 , (c it in g Allis-Chalm ers v. Lue ck , 471 U .S. 202, 220 (1985) ). The tes t for such p re empti on i n thi s c ircui t i s w hether proof of05-2414

P e a r s o n v . U A W

- 3 - the s tate law

cl aim w oul d req uire the i nter pretati on of col lecti v e barg ain ing ag re ement t e rm s a n d , if

so , wh e t h e r t h e ri gh tcl a im e d b y t h e p la in t if f is cr e a t e d b y t h e c o l l e c t ive barg ain ing ag re ement or by st ate l aw
. DeC oe v. Gen. Motor s C or p. , 32 F. 3d 212, 216 (6 th Cir. 1994). “If

the right both is b o rn e [ s ic ] of state law

and doe s not invoke con tract interp retat ion, th en th ere is no pree mp tion. How ever, if ne it h e r or on ly one criterion is satisf ied, section 301 preem ption is w arrante d.” Id. W e obs er v ed i n DeC oe that“the cou rt is not bound b y

the ‘w ell -p lea ded c omplai nt’ ru le , b u t rather , l ooks to the e ss ence of the pla int iff's cl aim, in order to deter mine w hether the pla int iff i s attempt ing to disgu ise w h at is essen tially a cont ract claim as a tort.” Id. Gi v en this prece dent, it is not sur pr is ing that in the f irst appe al in this case, w e also af f irmed the district court’s dismissal of the pla intif

f ’s cl aim for i ntent ion al infli cti on of emoti onal di stress bec ause that c la im “ w oul d req uire a
cour t to anal yz e the ter ms of t he UAW cons ti tuti on.” 2004 W L 95018 9 at **6

. Cf

. Tisdale v. United As s 'n of Jou rneymen and Appre ntices o f the Plum bingand Pipefitt ing In dustry of t he U.S. a n d

Canada L ocal

704 , 25 F. 3d 1308 , 131 0 ( 6th C ir . 199 4) ( obser v ing that Sect ion 301 of the Labor M anag ement R ela ti ons Acthas been int er preted to ap ply to int ra u n io n su it s re qui rin g int e rp re ta ti o n of un io n co n st it u ti o n s) (c it in g United A ss 'n of Jour neym en v

. Loc al 334 , 452 U .S. 615, 627 ( 1981) , and W ood dell v. Int'l Bhd. o f

E le c. W orkers , 502 U.S. 93, 100 (1991 )).
Base d on this ana ly sis, w e ho ld tha t th e d is t ri c tcourt’s ruling tha t the plaintif f ’s br e a c h -of-f iduciary-duty claim is preem pte d by fed eral law w as no t error. The court
cor re ctl y co ncl uded t hat t he cl aim re q uires anal y si s o f the U AW co nst it uti on to dete rmi ne05-2414

P e a r s o n v . U A W

- 4 - w hether there w as a fiduc iar

y rela ti onshi p to suppo rtthe pla int iff’s c lai m. I ndeed, the plaint if f asserts in his brief

on ap pea l to this court th at “the UAW Constitu ti o n itself sol idi fies that fact th at a fiduci ar y rela ti onshi p ex is ts. ” If the p lai nti ff has a remedy

for t he inj ur y thathe a ll eg es w as infli cte d by the defendants, an iss u e u p o n w hic h w e offer no opi nio n, i t c annot be bas ed on the d is puted sta te l aw cl aim ass erted h ere.
The di str ic t c our

t’ s o rd er of dis mis sal i s A FF IR ME D.