MICHAEL WHITE V. ARAMARK, No. 14-55405 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 7 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL I. WHITE, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-55405 D.C. No. 8:12-cv-00922-BRORNB v. MEMORANDUM* ARAMARK, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Michael I. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis * 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). supported by the record. Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. Summary judgment was proper because Aramark’s unopposed motion for summary judgment demonstrated the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to White’s claims. See id. (district court may grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant’s papers are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine dispute of material fact); see also Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14 (Cal. 2000) (elements of Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) discrimination claim); Flait v. N. Am. Watch Corp., 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 522, 528 (Ct. App. 1992) (elements of FEHA retaliation claim); Thompson v. City of Monrovia, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 377, 390 (Ct. App. 2010) (elements of FEHA harassment claim). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting White’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Kayes v. Pac. Lumber Co., 51 F.3d 1449, 1465 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review). We do not consider arguments or claims that were not presented to the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). White’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his reply brief, is 2 14-55405 denied. AFFIRMED. 3 14-55405

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.