SYED ALI V. AMAZON.COM, INC., No. 19-15853 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SYED NAZIM ALI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15853 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-04086-NC v. MEMORANDUM* AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 3, 2020*** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 736 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ali’s claim for race discrimination under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”) because Ali failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring him were pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19 (Cal. 2000) (setting forth burden-shifting framework under FEHA for discrimination claims and noting that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the strength of the employer’s showing of legitimate reasons, any countervailing circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive is too weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s motion to compel because Ali failed to demonstrate that the denial of discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 19-15853 in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal is granted. The Clerk will maintain under seal defendant’s supplemental excerpts of record, volume 2. AFFIRMED. 3 19-15853

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.