Granite Rock v. INTERN. BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS
| Decision Date | 19 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1214.,08-1214. |
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 2847,177 L. Ed. 2d 567 |
| Parties | GRANITE ROCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Garry G. Mathiason, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.
Robert Bonsall, Sacramento, CA, for respondent Teamsters Local 287.
Peter D. Nussbaum, San Francisco, CA, for respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Arthur R. Miller, New York, NY, Garry G. Mathiason, Alan S. Levins, Adam J. Peters, Rachelle L. Wills, Sofija Anderson, Littler Mendelson, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.
Stephen P. Berzon, Peter D. Nussbaum, Peder J. V. Thoreen, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
David Rosenfeld, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, Duane B. Beeson, Robert Bonsall, Holly K. Herndon Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, Oakland, CA, for Respondents.
This case involves an employer's claims against a local union and the union's international parent for economic damages arising out of a 2004 strike. The claims turn in part on whether a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a no-strike provision was validly formed during the strike period. The employer contends that it was, while the unions contend that it was not. Because the CBA contains an arbitration clause, we first address whether the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the District Court or an arbitrator to resolve. We conclude that it was a matter for judicial resolution. Next, we address whether the Court of Appeals erred in declining the employer's request to recognize a new federal cause of action under
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Doe v. Reed
-
Doe v. Reed
... ... Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 517–518, 524–525, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 ... ...
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
-
D'antuono v. Serv. Rd. Corp..
...and four of the ninety-two merits cases presented arbitration-related questions. See Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 2853, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010); Rent–A–Center West, Inc. v. Jackson, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2772, 2775, 177 L.Ed.2d......
-
Why Banks Should Consider Mandatory Arbitration Provisions
...10. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy to Use of Bogash, 301 U.S. 389, 393 (1937) 11. See, e.g., Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Broth. of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 2856-57 (2010) (citations omitted). 12. All parties may enforce arbitration agreements against all other parties to the agreement, but, as ......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...of Santander's own perpetual, non-cumulative 2% shares." Id. at 986. 147. Id. at 988.148. Id. at 988-89.149. 388 U.S. 395 (1967).150. 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010).151. Solymar, 672 F.3d at 988.152. Id. at 988, 999.153. Id. at 989.154. Id. Under Prima Paint, the relevant inquiry hinges on "whether......
-
Survey of Developments in Labor and Employment Law 2010
...U.S. 742, 765 (1998). See also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). 2. 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010). 3. 29 U.S.C. § 153(b). 4. 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010). 5. Granite Rock Co., 130 S. Ct. at 2866-69. 6. 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010). 7. The Supreme Court addressed only the timeliness, and not......