Legal Opinion

Canedo v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided September 17, 2018No. Case No.: 17cv1879-LAB (KSC)Published

1Opinion of the Court

*1123Milne Employees Ass'n v. Sun Carriers, Inc. , 960 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1992). "A provision in a collective bargaining agreement will not trigger preemption when it is only potentially relevant to the resolution of state law claims." Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. , 509 F.3d 978, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Humble v. Boeing Co. , 305 F.3d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (other citation omitted) ). The possibility that the Court might be required to or might choose to interpret the collective bargaining agreement to resolve the claim does not counsel against remand. Nor would it…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Livadas v. BradshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

23 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