a CBA. Id. at 1037–42. The statute made such deductions unlawful if the funds were not properly applied to pay insurance premiums within the time specified by the CBA or, if the CBA was silent, within the statutory limit of seven days. Id. at 1038. The allegation in Kobold was that the employer failed to transmit the withheld insurance premiums to the health insurance plan in a timely manner. Id. at 1037. Our court held that the claim was not preempted, even though the CBA provided for this type of pay deduction, because the asserted claim was for the failure to remit the deductions in a timely manner, and only the statute specified a seven-day limitation for transmitting the withheld premiums. Id. at 1040. The CBA did not specify a time period. Id. Our court also held that the Kobold plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim was not preempted because the Oregon statute governing such claims "create[d] and impose[d] duties on an employer independent of a CBA." Id. at 1041. In contrast, the Kobold court ruled that the same plaintiff’s claim for money had and received was preempted, because “[the employer’s] authority to deduct funds from [the plaintiff’s] paychecks and [the plaintiff’s] right to have those funds applied toward his health insurance premiums” were based on the CBA and without the CBA, the plaintiff "would have no basis upon which to bring the money had and received claim." Id.
It is not enough that a CBA refers to a right that is provided by statute. Our court has held that a claim based on a statutorily guaranteed right is not preempted, even when the CBA generally provides for a similar right. See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). In Balcorta, we held that a California law requiring employers to pay certain employees in the film industry within twenty-four hours of their discharge was not
