N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOAN M . JOJOLA; ELEANOR B AR C ELON; JAYANN JAC K SON; C ATHR YN LUM , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. AM E R IC AN PAC IFIC C ORPOR ATION; JULIE B UC KM AN,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-17481 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01492-JC M -GW F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 15, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C ANB Y , SILER , *** and HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
MAR 01 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Joa

n M . Jojola , Ele anor B arc e lon, Ja y ann Ja c kson, a

nd C athry n Lum (“ Pla intiffs” ) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the ir c om p la int for fa ilure to sta te a c la im upon whic h

re lie f c an be grante d. The y argue tha t the distric t c ourt (1) e rre d by dism issing the c om

pla int for fa ilure to sta

te a c la i m unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), a nd (2) a buse d its disc re tion by granting the de fe nda n ts’ m o t ion to dism

iss prior to a sc he dule d Ea rly Ne utra l Eva luat ion (“ ENE” ) se ssion. W e h a

ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 , a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Pla intiffs’ fe de ra l e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination a

nd Ne v a da

sta t e la w c la im s. Pla intiffs’ c om pla int fa ils to sta

te
c la im s for e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination ba se d on ge nde r, ra c e , a nd re ligion be c a

use it la c ks fa c ts pla

usibly sugge sting tha

t Pla intiffs e xpe rie nc e d “ e xplic it or
c onstruc tive a lte ra tions in the te rm s or c onditions of em ploy m e nt” due to the ir sta tus in a prote c te d c la ss. Burlington Indus., Inc . v . Elle rth , 524 U.S. 742, 752 (1998); se e Starr v

. Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th C i r. 2011). Thec om p la int
a lso fa ils to se t forth fa c ts e sta blishing pla

usible c la im s unde r Ne v a d a sta t e la w for inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss a nd unjust enric hm e nt. N

e lson v . C ity of Las Ve gas , 665 P.2d 1141, 1145 (Ne v. 1983) (listing e le m e nts of a n inte n tiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im ); C o ury v . Robison , 976 P.2d 518, 521 (Nev. 1999) (unjust enric h m e nt). Pla intiffs did not pre s e nt to thedistric t c ourt
2inde pe nde nt c la im s for de c la ra t ory and injunc tive re lie f. The y c annot do so for the first tim e on a

ppe a l. Marble d Murre le t v . Babbitt , 83 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th C ir. 1996). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by dism issing Plaintiffs’
c om pla i nt be fore the sc he dule d ENE se ssion. Ne ithe r this c ourt’ s c a se la w nor the Distric t of Ne va d a ’ s loc a l rule s pre c lude a Ne v a da distric t c ourt from

ruling on a dispositive

m otion prior to a

sc he dule d ENE se ssion. Se e D. Ne v. Loc a l R ule 16-6. 3. Pla intiffs a

rgue tha t this c ourt should c onside r the Ne va da De pa rtm e nt of Em ploy m e nt, Tra i ning a

nd R e ha bilita tion’ s (DETR) de c i sion a warding Ja c kson
une m ploy m e n t be ne fits. Se e . The DETR ’ s de c i sion is not pa rt of the re c ord on
a ppe a l, a s Pla intiffs fa ile d to pre se nt it to the distric t c ourt. K

irshne r v . Unide n C orp. of Am. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th C ir. 1988). And the DETR ’ s de c i sion is not re le va nt to theque s tion whe the r the Pla intiffs’ c om pla int sta te s a c la im for
re lie f. Se e C

ue llar v . J oy c e , 596 F.3d 505, 512 (9th C ir. 2010). W e the re fore de ny Pla i ntiffs’ re que st for judic ia l notic e . AFFIRM E D.

3