Legal Opinion

William Paluda v. ThyssenKrupp Budd Company

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided December 16, 2008No. 08-1192UnpublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs William Paluda and Robert Hall appeal from the district court’s decision denying plaintiffs renewed motion for remand to state court and granting the defendant ThyssenKrupp Budd Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Both decisions rest on the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs’ state-law age discrimination claims were preempted by both § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Concluding that the plaintiffs’ state law claims were…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Beneficial National Bank v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Laber v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International UnionDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2015
  2. Slinker v. Jim Beam Brands Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2016
  3. Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. West End Land Development, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2009
  4. Givens v. TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010
  5. Morrow v. Kroger Limited Partnership IDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2025

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API