In Westmarc, the court held that the Cable Act preempted a state cable regulatory agency from imposing a restriction on the pass through of a fine incurred by the cable company for its negligent failure to renew an operating permit. The Westmarc court concluded that the pass-through restrictions sought to be imposed by the agency were in substance a "trapping” of costs on the shareholders of the cable company so that they would not be passed on to the customers. According to the Westmarc court, this is exactly the type of rate regulation that Congress sought to preempt in enacting the preemptive provisions of the Cable Act. Westmarc, 807 F. Supp. at 876; see also Mobile Oil Corp. v. Dubno, 492 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Conn. 1980), affd in part & dismissed in part, 639 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff essentially is asking this
holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that a state law prohibiting a pass through of a gasoline tax to customers was preempted by federal law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding the state law claims were not preempted