requirements are satisfied. Thus, the question of whether the Section 301 “complete preemption” doctrine provided the district court with “original jurisdiction” is irrelevant because, as discussed above, the statute did not authorize removal of proceedings from BOLI. Accordingly, we need not reach the preemption issue, and we express no opinion regarding it. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to remand the case back to BOLI. 1 . U.S. West is now known as "Qwest Corporation.” However, we refer to the company as "U.S. West” for purposes of this opinion. 2 . See Volkswagen de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Labor Relations Bd., 454 F.2d 38 (1st Cir.1972); Floeter v. C.W. Transport, Inc., 597 F.2d 1100 (7th Cir.1979). 3 . See A.B. Dick Co. v. Marr, 197 F.2d 498, 502 (2d Cir.1952) (<HOLDING>); Humphreys v. United States, 272 F.2d 411, 412
holding appeal improper since the dismissal was voluntary holding that a voluntary dismissal moots a case holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice constituted a final order that was appealable holding the plain legal prejudice test applies to voluntary dismissal under the code holding that this court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice unless it was intended to settle the case