Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joshua B. SHAPIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABRAHAM LINCOLN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-56590.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 15, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Joshua B. Shapiro, Placentia, CA, pro se.
    Robert Alan Rees, Esquire, Rees Law Firm PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, GRABER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joshua Shapiro’s second motion for leave to amend his complaint. Shapiro provided no explanation for why he did not include the additional allegations in his earlier pleadings, and the court properly found that permitting him to amend his complaint at that point in the litigation would prejudice the defendants. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 952-53 & n. 9 (9th Cir.2006) (stating standard).

2. Shapiro also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on his claims for discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. We affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned order. For example, the district court correctly determined that the evidence in the record did not raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendants denied Shapiro accommodations for his learning disability. Similarly, the district court appropriately found that Shapiro was not subjected to any retaliatory action by defendants, who neither failed to provide the necessary documents to support Shapiro’s scholarship application nor denied Shapiro access to Westlaw.

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