(alteration in original) (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 125, 114 S.Ct. 2068); see Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (“[A]s long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for ... pre-emption purposes.” (quoting Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 408-10, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988))). In Kobold, where the state law required employers to transmit paycheck deductions to health insurance plans in a timely manner, we held that the claim was not preempted at Burnside’s second step because the CBA “unambiguously specif[ied]” the parties’ rights and obligations and therefore did not require interpretation. 832 F.3d at 1040; see also Balcorta, 208 F.3d at 1109-10 (<HOLDING>). In Matson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 840
holding claim not preempted where court is required to read and apply cba provisions that are neither uncertain nor ambiguous holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301 holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment holding that a claim based on a supervisors circulation of a suspension letter accusing the plaintiff of cocaine use was not preempted despite cba provisions authorizing employee discipline