Jump to content

Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
Argued February 26, 2001
Decided April 17, 2001
Full case nameArthur S. Lujan, Labor Commissioner of California, et al., v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Incorporated
Citations532 U.S. 189 (more)
121 S. Ct. 1446; 149 L. Ed. 2d 391
Case history
PriorC.D. of CA grants summary judgement to Respondents, G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 156 F.3d 893, 898 (CA9 1998) (Bradshaw I), Ninth Circuit affirms C.D. of CA, rehearing after intervening Supreme Court case 204 F.3d, at 943
SubsequentNinth Circuit Reversed, injunction vacated
Holding
Even though there is no hearing under the state contractual scheme, because plaintiffs can bring claims in state court, there is no violation of due process
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. VIX

Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a provision of the California Labor Code which allowed the state to withhold payment to contractors or subcontractors if found in breach of contract, without a specific hearing on the matter. The Court upheld the provision because the companies were still able to pursue a claim in state court.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the unanimous Opinion of the Court, reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had ruled the contested labor code regulation unconstitutional. Rehnquist stated that the companies involved would still be able to have the contract dispute reviewed in state court, despite the fact that the immediate withholding of funds was without a hearing. In sum he reasoned, "[I]f California makes ordinary judicial process available to G & G for resolving its contractual dispute, that process is due process."[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189 (2001).
[edit]