VanCourt v. APWU, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 4, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30900
Summary Calendar
NORMAN VAN COURT, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, New Orleans Local # 83;
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-1670-K
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norman Van Court, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant
of the defendants’ FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his
suit for failure to state a claim. Van Court argues that the
district court erred in determining that his state-law claims were
preempted and that his suit was not timely filed. We conduct a
de novo review of a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
for failure to state a claim. Brown v. NationsBank Corp., 188 F.3d
579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999).
The district court did not err in determining that
Van Court’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law.
Because Van Court’s claims arise from his allegation that the
defendants failed to diligently prosecute his grievance, these
claims are best construed as asserting that the defendants breached
the duty of fair representation (DFR) that they owed to Van Court.
See Landry v. The Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 880 F.2d 846,
852 (5th Cir. 1989); see also McNair v. U.S. Postal Service, 768
F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 1985). A DFR claim arises under federal
law and preempts state-law claims. See Richardson v. United
Steelworkers of America, 864 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (5th Cir. 1989).
Further, the resolution of Van Court’s claims necessarily
involves an analysis of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
A state-law claim is preempted by federal law when, as here,
resolution of the claim is “inextricably intertwined with”
consideration of the terms of a CBA. See Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39
F.3d 611, 616-17 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, Van Court’s state-law
claims are preempted both because they arise from an alleged breach
of the DFR and because resolution of these claims involves analysis
of the CBA.
The district court also did not err in determining that
Van Court’s suit was untimely. See Smith v. Int’l Org. of Masters,
Mates, and Pilots, 296 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2002). The fact

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that Van Court chose not to sue his employer does not preclude
application of the six-month statute of limitations announced in
DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 172, (1983),
to his suit. See Smith, 296 F.3d at 382.
Van Court has shown no error in the district court’s
judgment. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --