Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.

Good Law
363 F. Supp. 2d 1220·2005 WL 673275·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10443
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 2005CV 04-8954 FMC CWXCalifornia2,851 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 10). The Court, having read and considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for February 28, 2005, is removed from the Court’s calendar. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and attorneys’ fees.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a national “labor organization” within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 152 (5), representing skilled construction employees engag.ed in the installation and maintenance of automatic fire protection systems. See Pi’s mot., at pp. 7-8. Plaintiff, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 159 (a), is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain of the employees of Cosco. Id. The collective bargaining agreement to which the parties subscribe is called the “Agreement Between National Fire Sprinkler Association,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.