Adams v. Pacific Bell Directory
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Rylaarsdam
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that the Ninth Circuit's prior determination that LMRA section 301 does not preempt employees' state law claims constitutes law of the case and must be followed. Employees' claims under Labor Code section 221 and Business and Professions Code section 17200 challenging wage deductions can proceed in state court.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.