Case Name: Fred C. CARR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 10-15092
Parties: Fred C. CARR, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Fred C. CARR, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-15092.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 8, 2011.
Fred C. Carr, Jr., Oakley, CA, pro se.
Nick C. Geannacopulos, Esquire, Laura Jean Maechtlen, Esquire, Amy K. Skryja, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ann H. Qushair, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fred C. Carr, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his state law action challenging the suspension of his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, preempts Carr's state law claims because they are "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract." Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985). Carr's contentions concerning California Labor Code section 2856 are unpersuasive.
The district court did not violate Carr's due process rights by striking his unauthorized surreply where Carr filed an opposition and was provided a hearing prior to dismissal. See SEC v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir.2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard); see also N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-3(d) ("Once a reply is filed, no additional memo-randa, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval----"); Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n. 2 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) ("District courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Carr's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.