Case ID: f-appx_450/html/0564-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Diane RESTANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UAL CORPORATION; United Air Lines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-17547.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 1, 2011.
    Albert M. Kun, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Laura Jean Maechtlen, Esquire, Sey-farth Shaw, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brian Michael Stolzenbach, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Diane Restani appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for UAL Corporation and United Air Lines, Inc., and denial of her petition to set aside a decision by the System Board of Adjustment under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo. Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 889, 842 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment and denied Restani’s petition because Restani failed to show any grounds for vacating the Board’s decision. See English v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 18 F.3d 741, 743 (9th Cir.1994) (setting forth narrow grounds for review of adjustment board decisions).

Restani’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the applicability of the “de minimis non curat lex” doctrine and the “manifest disregard for the law” analysis, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.