David Valles John Breslin, and Members of the General Public Similarly Situated v. Ivy Hill Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that we “begin” § 301 preemption analysis “with an examination of California statutes, regulations, and case law”
• holding that the plaintiffs state law claim for meal periods was not preempted by the LMRA because “the construction of the collective bargaining agreement [was] simply not involved”
• explaining that “any provision of the collective bargaining agreement purporting to waive the right to meal periods would be of no force or effect” because “[t]he right in question is plainly nonnegotiable”
• holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to work-free meal periods even though the CBA purported to waive the right to work-free meal periods
• holding claim was not preempted where it was based on a statutorily guaranteed right to work-free meal periods- even though the CBA- purported to waive the right to work-free meal periods
• discussing the preemption of state-law claims brought to enforce 28 collective bargaining agreements without an independent state-law right

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).