Case ID: f-appx_650/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas HENNIGHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INSPHERE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15983
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 11, 2016 San Francisco, California
    FILED May 25, 2016
    
      Lawrance A. Bohm, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Bradley John Mancuso, Esquire, Woodland Hills, CA, Bohm Law Group, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Barbara A. Fitzgerald, Esquire, Attorney, Kathryn T. McGuigan, Esquire, Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew P. Frederick, Attorney, Thomas M. Peterson, Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Paulo B. McKeeby, Dallas, TX, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and LEFKOW, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, Senior District Judge for the U.S, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas Hennighan appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Insphere Insurance Solutions, Inc., which found that -Hennighan was an independent contractor, not employee of In-sphere. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not repeat them here. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).

Hennighan argues that the district court erred in excluding an Insphere office manager’s statements before the, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in an unrelated case, and erred in disregarding portions of declarations by Henni-ghan and his colleagues. Any errors were harmless because admission of that evidence would not have changed the result. See, e.g., Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It follows that we must affirm the district court unless its evidentiary ruling was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial.”)- We affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons set forth by the district court in its Order dated April 21, 2014.

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