TRI HUYNH V. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., No. 20-15211 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2021 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRI MINH HUYNH, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-15211 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01631-VC v. MEMORANDUM* WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 7, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Tri Minh Huynh appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his whistleblower retaliation action against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm the district court’s judgment. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on Huynh’s claims of retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, and wrongful termination under California law. Wal-Mart amply met its burden of producing evidence that there was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Huynh’s termination, or that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity. See id. at 996; Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1109 (2007). Further, Huynh made no showing of pretext. See Tides v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2011). Huynh’s motion for reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioner’s denial of his motion for summary reversal (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2

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.