Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Counts 2 — 7 contain various state law claims. The Defendants attack only Count 1 because, if the civil RICO charge fails, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The defendants first argue that this federal action is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has exclusive jurisdiction over all labor law disputes. Alternatively, the Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a claim as required by RICO. A. Garmon Preemption In San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), the Supreme Court announced the general rule regarding the par Commercial Workers v. SDC Investment, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 1001 (E.D.Cal.1986) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. Chestnut, 973 F.2d 644, 646 (8th
holding that the nlra preempts a rico claim when the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs rico claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws  holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that the nlra does not preempt the enforcement of rico where both statutes independently proscribe the same conduct holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims holding that while nlra does not preempt rico claims predicated on specific labor management relations act violations it does preempt rico claims predicated on generic statutes like mail and wire fraud