Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cecilia BALDAZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELKO COUNTY, ex rel., its Sheriff's Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15840
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016  San Francisco, California
    June 22, 2016
    Julie Cavanaugh-Bill, Cavanaugh-Bill Law Offices, LLC, Elko, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Thomas Peter Beko, Brent L. Ryman, Paul M. Bertone, Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Elko County, Marvin Morton, Rick Keema.
    Brian M. Brown, Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger, A Professional Corporation Law Offices, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Brad Hester.
    Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and LAMBERTH, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cecilia Baldazo appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Elko County, Marvin Morton, Rick Kee-ma, and Brad Hester, on Baldazo’s claims for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for common law negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in considering the arbitration award and record, which are admissible evidence for purposes of summary judgment. See Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 59-60, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). Because the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment was timely under Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Baldazo was on notice that the merits of her claims were at issue. Even if Baldazo’s opposition to summary judgment were construed as a motion under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Baldazo failed to show how “additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment,” Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted), and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to consider the merits of the defendants’ motion.

Finally, the defendants provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Baldazo, namely that she was untruthful and insubordinate, and introduced the arbitration award and record as supporting evidence. Baldazo failed to produce evidence that defendants’ reason was pre-textual. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary-judgment to the defendants.

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