Court Opinion

ID: 9493577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:12:04.323214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:54.794448
License: Public Domain

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Stare decisis, as Judge Bauer appropriately notes, is extremely important, and Bluffbon Casting is squarely on point. But in my view, Bluffbon Casting, born just 15 months ago, is clearly wrong. So this is one of those rare situations where stare decisis should not carry the day. Instead, we should cut our losses and reject Bluff-ton Casting before it grows older.
As I see it, Bluffton Casting is inconsistent with Atchley, National Metalcrafters, Liradas, and Lingle. The result is that unionized workers (who have a CBA) lose out in a situation like this, whereas nonu-nionized workers (with no CBA) can file a state mechanic’s lien and jump to the front of the creditors’ queue. The purpose of federal preemption is to ensure the uniform interpretation of CBAs, but that purpose isn’t served when no interpretation of a CBA is required. In this situation, I don’t see how an Indiana law that preferences unpaid workers over an unpaid bank interferes with consistent federal law governing labor agreements between employers and unions.
ORDER
Jan. 12, 2001
Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing En banc filed by the Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Answer filed by NBD Bank, N.A., the court has decided to rehear this case en banc. Accordingly, the November 6, 2000 opinion issued by the panel in this case is vacated. This appeal will be scheduled for oral argument en banc at the convenience of the court.