Legal Opinion
Andersen v. Pacific Bell
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 30, 1988No. Docket Nos. H002925, H003159PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BRAUER, J.
Plaintiffs, who are customer service representatives for defendant Pacific Bell, sued for arbitrary discrimination under Public Utilities Code section 453, subdivision (a), and constructive wrongful termination. The trial court granted Pacific Bell’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment, but reverse the order denying statutory costs to Pacific Bell.
Standard of Review
The Supreme Court has summarized “the well-established rules governing summary judgment procedure” as follows: “ ‘ “The matter to be determined by the trial court in considering such a motion is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
- Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Molien v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ducoing Management, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Helgeson v. American International Group, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1999
- Cooper v. Southern California Edison Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Pintor v. OngCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Ducoing Management v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.