Law of case doctrine prevents state court from deciding issue already ruled on by appellate court

Law Reporter, Dec 2003

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Adams v. Pacific Bell Directory, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (Ct. App. 2003).

A California appellate court held that the law of the case doctrine prevented a state court from deciding an issue already ruled on by an appellate court.

Here, employees sued a company in state court, alleging defendant's practice of debiting commissions was unlawful despite being permitted by a collective bargaining agreement. Defendant had the case removed to federal district court, contending the state court lacked jurisdiction because the Labor and Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, preempted all state claims requiring interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court and dismissed, finding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under federal labor law.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the LMRA was not preemptive. The court reversed the denial of the motion to remand with instructions to the district court to grant the motion. 216 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000). The state trial court then dismissed the case, finding that federal law preempts the claim because a decision would depend on the analysis of a collective bargaining agreement.

Reversing the trial court's decision, the appellate court noted that the law of the case doctrine resolves the jurisdictional issues and provides the parties with a forum to litigate the case. When an appellate court states a principle of law necessary to a decision, that principle becomes the law of the case and must be followed in all subsequent proceedings, the court said. Although the law of the case doctrine is a rule of procedure and is not binding on a court's power, the court noted that it gives great weight to federal appellate court decisions, particularly in the context of determining federal law, as here.

The court rejected defendant's argument that the Ninth Circuit based its decision solely on the allegations in the complaint, whereas the state court considered voluminous evidence when deciding the summary judgment. The courts reached their decisions based on the collective bargaining agreement, the court found. In interpreting the agreement, the Ninth Circuit stated a principle of law necessary to the case, the court said. In addition, the court rejected defendant's argument that the Ninth Circuit's decision was jurisciictional rather than a ruling on the merits. Although the Ninth Circuit's final decision was based on jurisdiction, it reached its conclusion by review and interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, which was a decision on the merits. Consequently, the state trial court's preemption decision had already been decided against defendant. Allowing the trial court to revisit that ruling, the court explained, would contravene the policies underlying the law of the case doctrine, which are conservation of judicial resources and ensuring finality of decisions.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Jack Smart, Newport Beach, Cal.