N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PIONEER

R OOFING OR G A

NIZATION, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. LOC AL JOINT ADJUSTM E NT SM AR T B OARD LOC AL UNION NO. 104,

De fe nda n t,
and SHEET M ETAL W O R KER S’ LOC AL UNION NO. 104,

De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . No. 17-15296 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-03544-JD
M EM O R ANDUM *

PIONEER

R OOFING OR G A

NIZATION, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. No. 17-15782 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-03544-JD



# FIL ED JUN 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.LOC AL JOINT ADJUSTM E NT SM AR T

B OARD LOC AL UNION NO. 104,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e , SHEET M ETAL W O R KER S’ LOC AL UNION NO. 104,

De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2018 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W ARDLAW

and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d OLIVER , * * Distric t Judge
. Pione e r R oofing Orga niz a tion (“ PR O ” ) a

ppe a ls a n orde r of the Unite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia granting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of She e t

M e t a l W orke rs’ Loc a l Union No. 104 (“ Loc a l 104” ) on PR O’ s pe tition to va c a te the arbitrator’ s a ward, a s we ll a s on Loc a l 104’ s c ounte rc la im to
e nforc e the arbitrator’ s aw ard. PR O a lso a p pe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r gra

nting Loc a l 104 a

ttorne y s’ fe e s and c osts. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . §

* * The Honora

ble Solom on Olive r, Jr., Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion. 21291. For the following re a sons, we a ffirm both orde rs of the distric t c ourt. 1. (a ) The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum m ary judgm e n t on PR O’ s pe tition to va c a te the arbitrator’ s a ward, a s we ll a s on Loc a l 104’ s c ounte rc la im to
e nforc e the arbitrator’ s aw ard. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. W

arre n v . C

ity of C arlsbad , 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th C ir. 1995). W he n re v ie wing a

la bor a rbitration a

ward, we a fford a

“ ‘ n e arly unpa ra lle le d de gre e of de fe re nc e ’ to the arbitrator’ s de c ision.” Se e Sw . Re g’l C ounc il of C

arpe nte rs v . Dry w a ll Dy namic

s , Inc
. , 823 F.3d 524, 530 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Ste ad Motors of W alnut C r e e k v . Auto. Mac hinists Lodge N o . 1173 , 886 F.2d 1200, 1204–05 (9th C ir. 1989) (e n ba

nc )), c e rt. de nie d , 137 S. C t. 829 (2017). PRO a rgue s tha t the
arbitrator la c ke d a

uthority to re solve the unde rly ing grie va nc e be c a use sa id grie va nc e wa s a jurisdic t iona l disputenot subje c t to a rbitration. Howe ve r, we find that PR O wa ive d its a

rbitra bility c ha lle nge by

fa iling to pre se rve the issue through
e ithe r of the two re c ogniz e d m e thods for doing so. Se e Van W ate rs & Roge rs Inc
. v . Int’l Bhd. of Te amste rs, C hauffe urs, W

a re house me n & He lpe rs of Am. , 913 F.2d 736, 740 (9th C ir. 1990) (quoting Ge orgeDay C onstr. C o . v . C arpe nte rs Loc al 354 , 722 F.2d 1471, 1475 (9th C ir. 1984)) (sta t ing tha t the re are “ two m e thods by whic h a pa rty subm i tting to a

rbitra tion m ay pre se rve arbitra

bility issue s for judic i a l
re vie w: a pa rty m ay (1) ‘ obje c t[ ] to the arbitrator’ s a uthority , re fuse [ ] to a

rgue the
3arbitra

bility issue be fore him , a

nd proc e e d [ ] to the m e rits of the grie va nc e ’ ; or (2)

‘ m a ke [ ] an obje c tion a s to jurisdic tion a nd a n e x pre ss re se rva tion of the que stion on the re c ord.’ ” ).

(b) PR O a lso a

rgue s tha t the arbitrator’ s a

ward doe s not dra

w its
e sse nc e from

the c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt be twe e n the pa rtie s a nd
c onstitute s a

m anife st disre ga

rd of the la

w. Howe ve r, PR O ha s fa ile d to point to
any pla c e in the re c ord whe re the arbitrator re c ogniz e d a nd ignore d c o ntrolling la w. Se e Mic h. Mut. Ins. C

o. v . Unigard Se c . Ins. C

o. , 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th C ir. 1995), as ame nde d (Fe b. 8, 1995) (c ita tion om itte d ) (sta ting tha

t a finding of
m anife s t disre ga

rd of the la

w re quire s tha

t it “ be c le ar from

the re c o rd tha

t the
arbitrators re c ogniz e d the a pplic a ble la w a nd the n ignore d it.” ). C onse que ntly , we find tha t the arbitrator’ s a

w ard dra ws its e s se nc e from

the c o lle c tive ba

rga ining
a gre e m e nt. 2. PR O a rgue s tha t the award of a ttorne y s’ fe e s a nd c osts by

the distric t
c ourt pursua

nt to the fe e s provision of the c o lle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e n t should be re ve rse d sole ly

be c a use the distric t c ourt e rre d in its underly ing ruling upholding the a

rbitrat or’ s a

ward. Ha ving a ffirm e d the distric t

c ourt’ s ruling upholding the a

rbitrat or’ s a

ward, it follows tha

t we m ust a lso a ffirm

the award of
a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c o sts by the distric t c ourt. Se e Bosac k v . Sow ard , 586 F.3d
41096, 1107 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ B e c a u se we a ffirm the distric t

c o urt’ s c onfirm ation of the a rbitration a

w ards, we a lso a ffirm

the award of a ttorne y

fe e s a nd c o sts.” ). Thus, we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s ruling orde ring PR O to pa y Loc a l 104’ s
a ttorne y s’ fe e s a

nd c o sts in the a m ount of $240,730.88. AFFIRM E D.

5