Opinion ID: 174862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Punitive and Extra-Contractual Damages

Text: The plaintiffs contend the district court erred in granting Raytheon judgment on the pleadings. By that judgment, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claims for punitive and extra-contractual damages under the LMRA and their claim for breach of contract. At the outset, the plaintiffs concede that punitive and extra-contractual damages are generally not allowed under the LMRA for breach of a CBA. See Moore v. Local Union 569 of Int'l. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 989 F.2d 1534, 1542 (9th Cir. 1993) (The general rule ... is that punitive damages are not allowed in actions for breach of contract under[the LMRA].); Desert Palace, Inc. v. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas, 679 F.2d 789, 794 (9th Cir.1982) (Generally, the remedy for breach of a collective bargaining agreement is limited to an award of compensatory damages. Ordinarily, an award that exceeds the monetary loss which an injured party suffered as a result of a contract breach is considered punitive.). The plaintiffs, however, contend that there are exceptions to this general rule; a court may award punitive damages if it would deter persistent misconduct and may award extra-contractual damages if the defendant's conduct was particularly likely to result in serious emotional distress. We need not resolve whether such exceptions exist, because the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts supporting their claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages. Even if we were to conclude that punitive damages are available in appropriate circumstances, the plaintiffs have alleged no facts showing that the defendants' conduct in this case is ... sufficiently `outrageous' or `egregious' to warrant an award of punitive damages against them. Wilson v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 83 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.1996).