Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony R. GRANILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-17276.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
    Anthony R. Granillo, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Benjamin J. Naylor, Esquire, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony R. Granillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his “hybrid” action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., 764 F.2d 663, 665-66 (9th Cir.1985), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as untimely because Granillo filed it more than six months after his claims accrued. See id. at 669 (explaining that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the claim accrued). The action was untimely even if, as Granillo contends, the claim accrued on November 14, 2007.

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