## Facts

- Reginald (“Reggie”) Bush was a running back in the National Football League (NFL) and, at the time, played for the San Francisco 49ers.
- On November 1, 2015, Bush played in an NFL game against the St. Louis Rams at the Rams’ stadium in St. Louis, Missouri (the Edward Jones Dome).
- After running out of bounds, Bush tried to slow down and slipped on a concrete surface bordering the turf playing field.
- Bush alleged the transition from turf to exposed concrete created an unreasonably dangerous condition and that the defendants negligently created and/or maintained that condition, causing him to suffer a serious left-knee injury that ended his season.
- Bush filed suit in Missouri state court asserting state-law premises-liability and negligence claims and seeking compensatory damages (including lost wages, medical expenses, and future earnings) and punitive damages based on alleged conscious disregard for player safety.
- The suit named multiple defendants connected to the stadium and game operations, including The St. Louis Rams, LLC.
- The Rams removed the case to federal court, arguing that Bush’s claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) because the NFL collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governed aspects of player safety and working conditions.
- Bush moved to remand, asserting his claims arose from Missouri tort duties and could be resolved without interpreting the CBA.

## Issues

1. Whether Bush’s Missouri premises-liability and negligence claims were completely preempted by LMRA § 301 because resolving them would require interpreting the NFL CBA, thereby creating federal-question jurisdiction and making removal proper.

## Decision

- The court granted Bush’s motion to remand.
- The court held that LMRA § 301 did not completely preempt Bush’s state-law tort claims.
- Because the removing defendant did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the case was remanded to Missouri state court.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant removing a case bears the burden to show federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and doubts are resolved in favor of remand.
- Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction generally must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not create removal jurisdiction.
- LMRA § 301 can completely preempt a state-law claim only when (a) the claim is based on rights created by a CBA, or (b) resolving the claim substantially depends on interpreting the CBA.
- A state-law claim is not completely preempted when it can be resolved by applying state tort elements (duty, breach, causation, damages) without construing disputed CBA terms; merely consulting a CBA as background is not enough.
- Premises-liability and negligence duties owed by landowners/occupiers to invitees arise under state law and may remain independent of any labor-contract duties, even when the injured person is a unionized employee covered by a CBA.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Bush’s premises-liability and negligence claims were grounded in Missouri tort duties concerning unsafe premises conditions at the stadium boundary and could be decided without interpreting the NFL CBA; therefore, LMRA § 301 complete preemption did not apply, federal-question jurisdiction was absent, and the case had to be remanded to Missouri state court.


Bush v. St. Louis Rams, 2016 WL 3125869 (2016)