Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerald REESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICRO DENTAL LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-17152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2009.
    
    Filed April 23, 2009.
    James J. O’Donnell, Esquire, G. Wynn Smith, Jr., Esquire, O’Donnell & Smith, Walnut Creek, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Shane K. Anderies, Esquire, Kathleen Maylin, Esquire, Jackson Lewis LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: T.G. NELSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald Reese appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Micro Dental Laboratories on his claim of retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not supply them here except as necessary to explain our decision. Reese failed to present specific, substantial evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the reason advanced by Micro Dental for his termination was pretextual. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir.2000). Micro Dental presented credible evidence that it had begun a workforce restructuring process six months before Reese’s termination, and long before the alleged protected activity took place. Reese’s position was eliminated as part of that restructuring process, not in retaliation for his protected activity.

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