This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Declaratory Relief
National Labor Relations Act Preemption

Unico Mechanical Corp., Alfred Conhagen Inc. of California v. Kamala Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General for the State of California; Christine Baker, in her official capacity as the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations; Diane Ravnik, in her official capacity as the Chief of the California Division of Appre

Published: Jan. 28, 2017 | Result Date: Dec. 12, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:15-cv-00996-JAM-DB Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ronald J. Holland II
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)

Ellen M. Bronchetti
(McDermott, Will & Emery LLP)

Jonathan P. Barker
(Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton)


Defendant

John W. Killeen
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Unico Mechanical Corp. and Alfred Conhagen Inc. of California sued former Attorney General Kamala Harris; Industrial Relations Director Christine Baker, Chief of Apprenticeship Standards Diane Ravnik, and the California Secretary for Environmental Protection Matt Rodriguez.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs were contractors that performed construction, maintenance and repair work described in California Health and Safety Code Section 25536.7, as enacted under Senate Bill 54. Their workers were neither affiliated with nor represented by any union. Nor have their coworkers engaged in recent efforts to unionize. Plaintiffs contended that SB 24 was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs also contended that Section 25536.7 violated the 14th amendment and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on those grounds.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, disputing plaintiffs' preemption and constitutional violation allegations.

Result

The court granted the state defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 7, 2015.


#115395

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390