N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHEET M ETAL W O RKER S LOC AL UNION 105, a

n uninc orporate d a ssoc i ation, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. TITAN SHEET M ETAL INC . , a C a l ifornia c orporat ion, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt, and EPIC SHEET M ETAL INC ., a C a lifornia c orporation, De fe nda

nt. No. 20-55849 D.C . Nos. 5:18-c v-00754-JAK-SP 8:18-c v-00616-JAK-SP 8:18-c v-00611-JAK-SP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John A. Kronstadt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 30, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.B e fore : IKUTA, B ENNETT, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s . Tita n She e t M e ta l Inc . (“ Tita

n” ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r gran ting a m o tion by

She e t M e ta l W orke rs Loc a l Union 105 (“ SM AR T” ) to c onfirm a n a rbitra tion a ward a g a inst Tita

n a nd de ny i ng Tita

n’ s m otion to vac ate that award. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 9 U.S.C . § 16(a )(1)(D) and 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt did not err in de te rm ining thec olle c tive ba rga ining a gre e m e nt (“ C B A” ) be twe e n Tita n a n d SM AR T c ontinue d in e ffe c t be y o nd its sta te d e xpira tion da te of June 30, 2017. B y

the pla in te rm s of Artic le XVII, Se c tion 1 of the

C B A, SM AR T’ s subm ission of a tim e ly notic e of re ope ning to Tita n c a use d the C B Ato c ontinuein e ffe c t until c e rta in re ne gotia tion proc e dure s we re c om ple te d
. The pa

rtie s fa ile d to c o m

ple te suc h re ne gotia

tion proc e dure s, a

nd so the C B A did not term inate on June 30, 2017. B e a c h Air C o nditioning & He ating, Inc . v . She e t

Me tal W ork e rs Int’l Ass’n, Loc a l Union N o . 102 , whic h involve d fa c ts tha

t a re not m ate ria lly

distinguisha

ble from those of this c a s e and like wise c onc lude d the c olle c tive ba rga ining a gre e m e nt c ontinue d in full forc e and e ffe c t pe n ding c om

ple tion of re ne gotia

tion proc e dure s, c onfirm s this c onc lusion. 55 F.3d 474, 476–78 (9th C ir. 1995).

2B e c a

use the C B A c o ntinue d in e ffe c t a fte r June 30, 2017, were je c t Tita n’ s argum e nts tha

t SM AR T im

plic itly wa ive d its grie va

nc e unde r the C B Aby

fa iling to ra ise it be fore June 30, 2017, a nd tha t the C B A’ s ba

r on re pudia

tion during the te rm of the a gre e m e nt did not a pply a fte r that da

te . W e a lso re

je c t Tita n’ s argum e nt tha

t be c a use it ha d c e a se d to ope rate by June 30, 2017, the grie va nc e proc e d ure would befutile . Eve n a ssum ing tha t Tita n c e a se d ope rat ions, Tita

n wa s not re lie ve d from

its obliga t ions unde r the C B A , suc h a s its obliga tion unde r Artic le II, Se c tion 1 to re fra in from subc ontra c ting or a ssigning work to non-union third pa rtie s. Tita n wa ive d its a

rgum e nts tha

t spe c ifie d ple a dings subm i tte d by SM AR T c onta ine d judic ia l a dm i ssions tha t the C B A e xpire d on June 30, 2017 be c a u se Tita n did not raise the s e argum e nts in thedistric t c ourt. B ut e ve n if the se argum e nts we re not wa ive d, we re je c t the m be c a u se SM A R T did not judic ia lly a dm it tha t the C B A wa s of no furthe r forc e or e ffe c t a fte r June 30, 2017; it m e re ly a c knowle dge d tha

t the C B A pa sse d its sta

te d e xpira tion da t e . B e c a use the C B A c o ntinue d in full forc e and e ffe c t pa st June 30, 2017, we ne e d not re a c h Tita

n ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in suppose dly de te rm i ning tha

t Tita n’ s a l le ge d viola

tions of theC B A be g an be fore June 30, 2017. AFFIRM E D. 3