Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0970-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mitsue TAKAHASHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Merced Office, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-15547.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 25, 2011.
    Mitsue Takahashi, Livingston, CA, pro se.
    Jeffrey Pierce Davis, Esquire, Dowling Aaron & Keeler, Inc., Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mitsue Takahashi appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her employment action on statute of limitations and res judicata grounds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Takahashi’s claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as time-barred. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l) (at most 300-day time limit for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge under Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (same for ADEA); Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir.2000) (“[Fjailure to file an EEOC charge within the prescribed 300-day period ... is treated as a violation of a statute of limitations^]”), overruled on other grounds by Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1194-96 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Moreover, the district court properly determined that Takaha-shi’s Title VII and ADEA claims were also barred by res judicata. See Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir.2007) (stating requirements for res judicata under California law).

Takahashi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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