From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herrera v. International Union

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 11, 1996
73 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir. 1996)

Summary

adopting analysis in published district court decision

Summary of this case from In re Duran

Opinion

No. 94-3301.

Filed January 11, 1996.

William S. Robbins, Jr., The Robbins Group, Kansas City, Missouri, for the Appellants.

David W. Whipple, Whipple Law Firm, Kansas City, Missouri (M. Jay Whitman, Associate General Counsel, International Union, UAW, Detroit, Michigan, with him on the brief) for Appellees UAW and all individually named defendants.

R. Kent Sellers (Jack J. Gates, with him on the brief) Gage Tucker, Kansas City, Missouri, for Appellee General Motors Corporation.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

(D.C. No. 92-CV-2132)

Before TACHA and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and ELLISON, District Judge.

The Honorable James O. Ellison, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.


This dispute arose out of an alleged agreement between defendants General Motors Corporation ("GM") and the United Auto Workers ("UAW") to reduce the number of slots in a job security program. Plaintiffs John P. Herrera, III, and Deborah Herrera, GM employees and UAW members, asserted claims under Section(s) 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq., the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and plaintiffs appeal. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

We review the district court's order of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). In so doing, we examine the factual record and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id.

After careful review of the record, we adopt the analysis in the Memorandum and Order of the district court. Herrera v. UAW, 858 F. Supp. 1529 (D. Kan. 1994). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.


Summaries of

Herrera v. International Union

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jan 11, 1996
73 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir. 1996)

adopting analysis in published district court decision

Summary of this case from In re Duran

adopting district court's opinion as opinion of court of appeals

Summary of this case from McCarter v. West
Case details for

Herrera v. International Union

Case Details

Full title:JOHN P. HERRERA, III and DEBORAH HERRERA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jan 11, 1996

Citations

73 F.3d 1056 (10th Cir. 1996)

Citing Cases

Titan Tire Corp. of Freeport, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Industrial & Serv. Workers Int'l Union

As the Second Circuit recognized, no-docking arrangements have been consistently upheld by the courts as not…

Reese v. Teamsters Local Union No. 541

In a typical case, the limitations period begins to run when the employee learns or should have learned that…