T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L A R R Y L U C H E T T I, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. H E R S H E Y C O M P A N Y , a D el aw ar e c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17193 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 6 2 9 - SI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S us a n I l l s t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry14, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , N O O N A N , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L uc he tt i appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n f a vorof T he H e r s he yC om pa ny( H e r s he y ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtha d j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 

# FI LED JAN 27 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSU . S . C . § 1332( a ) ( 1) a nd w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s t i m e l yappe a l pur s ua ntt o 28

U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f

f i rm. B oth C a l i f

orni aL aborC ode § 1102. 5 ( W e s t2010) a nd § 6310 ( W e s t2003) r e q u ir e th a t L u c h e tti p r o v e h e e x p r e s s e dh is o p p o s itio n to H e r s h e y ’s s a f e ty p r a c tic e s o rla c kth e r e o f . D al yv . E xx on C or p. , 6 3 C a l. Rp tr . 2 d7 2 7 , 7 2 9 ( C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ; T

ay lorv . L oc khe e d M

ar t i n C or p. , 9 2 C a l. Rp tr . 2 d8 7 3 , 8 8 1

– 8 2 ( C a l. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Y

an ow i t z v . L ’O re alU

SA , Inc. , 1 1 6 P .3 d1 1 2 3 , 1 1 3 3 ( C a l. 2 0 0 5 ) . L u c h e tti ar g u e s th a t h is o r a l c o m p la in ts to S o le s , h is s up e rv is o r , to g e th e rw ith h is em ai l w i th a copy t o S ol es , cr ea t e atri abl e i ss ue of fa ctas t o w hether L uchett i w as e xpr e s s i ng oppos i t i on t o pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the s t a tus quo, w hi c h i nc l ude d ongoi ng vi ol at i on s of C al -O S H A . T he di stri ctcourtdi sa gree d and so do w e. N ei ther L u c h e tti’s e m a il, n o rh is c o n v e r s a tio n w ith S o le s , is e v id e n c e o f a n yo p p o s itio n to H e r s he y ’ s s a f

e typr a c t i c e s . T he e vi de nc e s how s onl ytha tL uc he tt i di s c us s e d how t o b es taddres s s af

ety pra ct i ce s atthe pl antw i th h i s s up ervi sors and co-w orker. In a d d itio n , n o n e o f

L u c h e tti’s e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t h e c o m p la in e dab o u t th e le g a lity o f H e r s h e y ’s p r a c tic e s o rp r o c e du r e s . Se e H olm es v . G e ne r al

D y nam i c s C or

p. , 22 C a l . Rptr . 2d 172, 181 ( C a l . C t . A pp. 1993) . F i na l l y , L uc he tt i f a i l e d t o r e but H e r s h e y ’s e v id e n c e th a t h is te rm in a tio n w a s f o rale g itim a te r e a s o n th a t w a s n o t a p r e te x t f o rr e ta lia tio n . AF F I RME D.