Skip to main content

Las Vegas Sands Inc v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226

9th CircuitDecember 3, 2003No. Nos. 02-16381, 02-16384, 03-15125; D.C. Nos. CV-97-00467-PMP, CV-97-00467-PRP/RLHCited 27 times

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court reversed the denial of the union's motion to compel arbitration of the implied covenant claim, but affirmed the dismissal of the employer's breach of contract and tortious interference claims. The employer prevailed on the contract interpretation issue (that the non-interference clause applied only to the Sands, not the Venetian), but lost on arbitrability and Noerr-Pennington immunity arguments.

What This Ruling Means

**Las Vegas Sands vs. Culinary Workers Union: What Workers Need to Know** This case involved a dispute between Las Vegas Sands casino and the Culinary Workers Union over contract terms and union activities. The casino sued the union, claiming the union broke their contract and interfered with business operations. The union argued that certain disputes should be resolved through arbitration (a private dispute resolution process) rather than in court. The court issued a mixed ruling. It sided with the union on a key issue, requiring that claims about the employer's duty to act in good faith must go to arbitration instead of court. However, the court dismissed some of the union's other legal claims. The casino won on one contract interpretation issue, but lost on other legal arguments. This decision matters for workers because it shows that unions can successfully push for arbitration when contracts require it, even when employers prefer to fight in court. It also demonstrates that courts will enforce arbitration clauses in union contracts, which can sometimes provide a faster, less expensive way to resolve workplace disputes. The ruling reinforces that both employers and unions must follow the dispute resolution procedures they agreed to in their contracts.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada
11th CircuitDec 2005
Remanded
Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win
Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance
6th CircuitNov 2007
Defendant Win
Killingsworth
7th CircuitNov 2007
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.