N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C LAYTON DEL THIB ODEAU,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ADT LLC , DB A ADT Holdings Inc ., DB A ADT Se c urity Se rvic e s,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 19-56356 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-02680-GPC -AGS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C la yton De l Thibode a

u a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s pa rtia l sum m a ry judgm e nt in his ac tion a lle ging a va rie ty of C a l ifornia

sta t e la w c la im s a g a i nst his 

# FIL ED
MAY5 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).form e r e m

p loy e r, ADT LLC (ADT). W e a ffirm in pa rt a nd va c ate and re m and in pa rt. (1) W e have jurisdic tion to de c ide this a p pe a l. Thibode a

u ’ s M ay 6th m otion
wa s, in substa

nc e , a m otion to alte r or am e nd the judgm e nt be c a use it sought pre j udgm e nt inte re st unde r C a lifornia la w. S e eHav e nsight C

ap. LLC v . N

ik e , Inc

. , 891 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th C ir. 2018); Mc C alla v . Roy al Mac C

abe e s Life Ins. C o. , 369 F.3d 1128, 1128,1134 (9th C ir. 2004); se ealso Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(e ); C a l. La b. C ode § 2802(b). Tha

t m otion re m a ine d pe n ding until the distric t c ourt’ s orde r on Oc tobe r 21, 2019. Se e Mc C alla , 369 F.3d a

t 1130–34. Thus, Thibode a u’ s notic e of a ppe a l wa s tim e ly

file d on Nove m

be r 20, 2019. Fe d. R
. App. P. 4(a )(1)(A), (4)(A)(iv). (2) The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to ADT on Thibode a u’ s C la im Two (whistle

blowe r re ta lia

tion). In orde r to m ake out a prim a fa c i e c a se for re ta lia

tion, Thibode a

u ha d to a dduc e e vide nc e sugge sting tha t he
e nga ge d in prote c te d a c tivity

— that is, tha

t he re porte d pra c tic e s he re a sona bly be lie ve d we re ille g a l. Se eRoss v . C ounty of Riv e rside , 248 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 696, 704–05 (C t. App. 2019). Thibode a u fa ile d to do so. First, the

re is no e v ide nc e in this re c ord tha

t Thibode a

u re porte d ADT’ s te le phone solic ita tion pra c tic e s a s ille g a l. Se c ond, whilehe te stifie d tha t he re porte d the ille ga l ity of ADT’ s in2pe rson solic ita t ion pra c tic e s a

nd distribution of le a ds to ve ndors, Thibode a u ha s not pointe d to a

ny e vide nc e sugge sting tha

t his be lie fs in theille ga lity of those pra c tic e s we re re a sona

b le
. C f . Mok le r v . C ounty of Orange , 68 C a l . R

ptr. 3d 568, 581 (C t. App. 2007). (3) The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of ADT on Thibode a

u’ s C la im Thre e (unla

w ful disc losure of c ustom e r inform ation) be c a use Thibode a

u a d m itte d tha t he wa s not a

c ustom e r of ADT. Se eLujan v

. De fs. of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 563, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2137–38, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). Eve n

if ADT disc lose d som e of Thibode a u’ s own inform at ion, tha

t doe s not support his c la im

for wrongful disc losure of c ustom e r inform ation. Le nie nc e
a fforde d to pro se litiga

nts doe s not e xte nd to c re at ing unple d c la im s for the m . Se e By rd v . Maric opa C

ty . She riff’s De

p’t , 629 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). (4) The distric t c ourt e rre d in e nte ring sum m ary judgm e nt on Thibode a

u’ s C la im Five (unpa i d ove rtim e wa ge s). ADT bore the burde n of de m onstra ting tha t C a lifornia ’ s outside -sa le s pe rson e xe m ption a pplie d, a n d tha t fa c tua lly spe c ific de te rm i nation 1 re quire s “ ‘ a pure ly qua ntita tive a pproa c h’ ” tha

t “ foc use s

1 W alsh v . IK ON Off. Sols., Inc

. , 56 C a l. R ptr. 3d 534, 546 (C t. App. 2007); se e a lso Ramire

z v . Yose miteW

ate r C o., Inc

. , 978 P.2d 2, 5 (C a l. 1999). 3e xc lusive ly

on whe the r the e m

ploy e e spe nds m o re tha

n ha lf of the workda

y
e nga ge d in sa le s a c tivitie s outsidethe offic e .” Duran v

. U.S. Bank N at’l Ass’n , 325 P.3d 916, 929 (C a l. 2014). Upon de novo re vie w, we de te rm ine tha t sum m ary judgm e nt wa s ina

ppropria t e be c a use the re we re ge nuine dispute s of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r Thibode a

u “ ‘ c u stom arily

and re gula

rly work[e d] m ore tha

n ha l f [his] working tim e away

from the e m ploy e r’ s pla c e of busine ss se lling . . . item s or obta ining orde rs.’ ” Ramire z , 978 P.2d a

t 9 (ita lic s om itte d ); se ealso C a l. La b. C ode § 1171. (5) W e re j e c t Thibode a

u’ s othe r c la im s , m any

of whic h sim

ply re fle c t the diffic u ltie s a

nd “ ‘ h a z ards whic h

be se t a la ym an whe n he se e ks to re pre se nt him se lf.’ ” Bias v . Moy nihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th C ir. 2007). None are we ll take n, nor do the y

re fle c t pre

judic ia l e rror (le t

a lone bia s or m isc onduc t on thepa rt of the distric t c ourt). Se eid. M ore ove r, we de c line to c onside r im prope rly de ve lope d or ne w ly

m inte d argum e nts on a

ppe a l
. Se eC

raw ford v . Lungre n , 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th C ir. 1996); Gre e nw ood v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994). The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

4