FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZATREA EVANS, No. 10-15264
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04993-MMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY
SERVICES LLP; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Zatrea Evans appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action alleging state law employment claims and its order denying her motion to
remand the action to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo the district court’s order denying the motion to remand, and for
clear error its underlying factual findings. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT&T
Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err by finding that Evans was subject to a
collective bargaining agreement during the relevant time period in light of
defendants’ evidence and Evans’s own allegations referencing “union rules.”
Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to remand because some
of Evans’s claims were completely preempted under § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), see Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc.,
255 F.3d 683, 693 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), and thus these claims were removable
to federal court, see Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2003).
Evans’s non-preempted state law claims were also removable under the
supplemental jurisdiction statute. See id. at 8 n.3.
Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15264