Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. Curry
| Decision Date | 16 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | 92-16276,Nos. 92-16308,s. 92-16308 |
| Parties | 130 Lab.Cas. P 58,001, 2 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1606, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8088, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,915, Pens. Plan Guide P 23916P ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, INC., Golden Gate Chapter; Golden Gate Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors Training Trust Fund; Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors Bat Training Program, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James CURRY and Ronald T. Rinaldi, in their official capacities as Labor Commissioner of the State of California, and Director of Industrial Relations for the State of California, Defendants-Appellees, and Operating Engineers Joint Apprenticeship Committee; Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee; Northern California Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee; California & Vicinity Field Iron Workers Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Intervenors-Appellees. WALTHER ELECTRIC COMPANY; Walther Electric Company Training Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James CURRY and Ronald T. Rinaldi, in their official capacities as Labor Commissioner of the State of California, and Director of Industrial Relations for the State of California, Defendants-Appellees, and Operating Engineers Joint Apprenticeship Committee; Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee; Northern California Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee; California & Vicinity Field Iron Workers Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Intervenors-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mark R. Thierman, John W. Prager, Jr., and George P. Parisotto, Thierman Law Firm, San Francisco, California, for plaintiffs-appellants.
H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., Chief Counsel, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Department of Industrial Relations, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee James Curry.
John M. Rea, Chief Counsel, and James D. Fisher, Department of Industrial Relations, San Francisco, California, for defendant-appellee Ronald T. Rinaldi.
Victor Van Bourg, Blythe Mickelson, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Oakland, California, and Lawrence H. Kay, Stanton, Kay & Weston, Sacramento, California, for the intervenors-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before: BEEZER and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge. *
Appellants administer trainee programs approved by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training for Davis-Bacon Act public works projects. They sought and were denied approval for California public works projects by the California Apprenticeship Council. The district court held that the operation of California's prevailing wage statute, California Labor Code Sec. 1720 et seq., to allow the payment of lower apprentice wages to only California approved programs did not violate the preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(a). Associated Builders and Contractors v. Curry, 797 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D.Cal.1992). Appella...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp..
...(2011). Given this new precedent altering existing case law, we must remand to the district court. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Curry, 68 F.3d 342, 343 (9th Cir.1995). Specifically, we take the following actions: (1) Because at least one named Plaintiff (Sasaki) alleges a ......
-
Associated General Contractors, San Diego Chapter, Inc., Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund v. Smith, s. 92-55618
...to apprenticeship programs related to an ERISA plan and fell under the preemption clause. Id. at 719; Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Curry, 68 F.3d 342, 343 (9th Cir.1995) (applying Dillingham ); see also MacDonald, 949 F.2d at 275 (action under Nevada prevailing wage law preemp......
-
WSB Elec., Inc. v. Curry
...intent or purpose, the state's traditional power to regulate wages and to establish and enforce other labor standards"), vacated, 68 F.3d 342 (9th Cir.1995) (remanding for decision in light of Dillingham ).3 The regulations also include anticipated employer costs for providing benefits not ......
- Ilwu-Pma Welfare Plan Bd. of Trs. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.