Case ID: f-appx_230/html/0765-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter B. CRIMES, a single man, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, a New York corporation authorized to conduct business within Arizona, Defendant-Appellee, and John Does, I-V individually and as husbands & wives; et al.
    No. 05-15768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2007 .
    Filed April 30, 2007.
    Carole A. Summers, Esq., Haralson Miller Pitt Feldman & McAnally, PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Ronald J. Stolkin, Esq., Law Offices of Fennemore Craig, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Crimes established prima facie cases of both age discrimination and retaliation. But his prima facie cases were rebutted by Phelps Dodge, and Crimes has not presented enough evidence that a reasonable fact finder could conclude either: (a) that “the alleged reason for [the] discharge was false”, or (b) that “the true reason for [the] discharge was a discriminatory one.” Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Phelps Dodge was appropriate.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir.2002); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1281 (9th Cir.2000).
     
      
      . Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir.1997).
     
      
      . See Id.