Case ID: f-appx_124/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard FISHKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Defendant — Appellee.
    No. 03-56263.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2005.
    
    Decided March 14, 2005.
    Gastone Bebi, The Law Offices of Ga-stone Bebi, La Mesa, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    United States Attorney, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, Nina T. Wang, Carol C. Lam, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General.
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Richard Fishkin appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government. We review de novo. Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004).

Plaintiff claims that he suffered various forms of unlawful discrimination when he formerly worked as an Assistant United States Attorney. The district court dismissed this action on the ground that it was filed too late.

As he was required to do, Plaintiff first presented his claims to the government agency, which decided against him in a final decision dated November 9, 2001, and mailed shortly thereafter. On November 19, 2001, Plaintiffs lawyer of record maintained his office at 4400 Palm Avenue, Suite C, La Mesa, California 91941. On that date the final agency decision was delivered to that address and the document was signed for. Receipt by the lawyer’s office of notice begins the 90-day period. Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 93, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). The agency is entitled to rely on the address that is on file with the EEOC. Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc., 112 F.3d 380, 384 (9th Cir.1997). Plaintiff filed this action on March 4, 2002, which is more than 90 days after “receipt of notice” of the agency’s final action on November 19, 2002. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Plaintiff does not claim equitable tolling.

AFFIRMED.