Unpublished Disposition, 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1986)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Plaintiff-appellant Erick Guzman appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Beverly Wilshire Hotel Company (Beverly), Regent International Hotels (Regent) and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11, AFL-CIO (Union). We affirm.

Guzman's claims against Beverly for breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and against the Union for breach of a duty of fair representation, are subject to a six month statute of limitations. See Conley v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 810 F.2d 913, 915 (9th Cir. 1987). Guzman filed suit against Regent and the Union on November 4, 1986, more than six months after the accrual of his cause of action on April 23, 1986. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Regent and the Union.

Guzman's claim against Beverly was filed on August 14, 1986, within the six month limitations period. Guzman claims that Beverly discharged him without good cause in violation of the collective bargaining agreement of March 13, 1985. However, the March 13 collective bargaining agreement was not in effect at the time of Guzman's discharge. It was superceded by a collective bargaining agreement dated December 31, 1985. Under the December 31, 1985 agreement, Beverly had the right to discharge Guzman without good cause.

Guzman claims that the December 31 collective bargaining agreement lacked legal effect because it was not signed by three Union officials. However, the sole support for his claim that the Union maintained a "three officials" signature requirement was a conclusory allegation in the complaint. He failed to produce evidence that demonstrates that this requirement was established in the Union's constitution or by-laws. Guzman's conclusory allegation that the December 31 collective bargaining agreement lacked legal effect was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986) (" [t]he party opposing summary judgment may not rest on conclusory allegations, but must set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial").

AFFIRMED.