Auble

Auble v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Good Law

55 F. Supp. 2d 1019·1999 WL 512471·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11988

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 28, 1999C98-20273 EAICalifornia2,518 words

Opinion

Infante, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXPECTANCY DAMAGES

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG & E”) moves for partial summary adjudication that Plaintiff Randy Au-ble is entitled only to reliance damages on his claims for fraud and violation of California Labor Code § 970, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

On February 10, 1998, plaintiff Auble filed a complaint against defendant PG & E alleging claims for violation of California Labor Code § 970, fraud and promissory estoppel. Defendant PG & E removed this action to federal court, alleging that plaintiffs promissory estoppel claim is preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a). On April 8, 1998, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case back to state court, contending that his complaint did not state any grounds for federal jurisdiction. In an order filed June 15, 1998, Judge Fogel denied the motion to remand, holding that any claims, including at least…

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.