N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEONG KO, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ITY OF LA HAB R

A, A Public Entity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55487

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05305-R -PJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

JEONG KO, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ITY OF LA HAB R

A, A Public Entity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-55705

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05305-R -PJW

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d July 16, 2015 Subm itte d De c e m

be r 24, 2015 

# FIL ED
D EC 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

B e fore : WARDLAW , B EA, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc u i t Judge s. The C ity of La Ha bra a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Je o ng Ko on his c la im tha t the C i ty viola te d the Uniform e d Se rvic e s Em ploy m e nt a nd R e e m ploy m e n t R ights Ac t (“ USERR A ” ), 38 U.S.C
. §§ 4301–4335 , by fa i ling to gra nt him a re troa c tive ste p inc re a se upon his re turn from m ilita ry le ave . The C ity

a lso a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of attorne y s’ fe e s . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse . 1. The distric t c ourt did not viola te the la w of the c a se by

granting Ko’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. W e first c onside re d this c a s e two y e a

rs a g o, whe n we
re ve rse d the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the C ity
. Se e K o v . C ity of La Habra (

K o I ), 534 F. App’ x 615 (9th C ir. 2013) (unpublishe d). W e he l d tha

t “ [t] he distric t c ourt e rre d by holding tha

t Ko fa ile d to ra ise a

dispute of m a te ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he is e ntitle d unde r the USERR A to STEP pa

y inc re a se s for whic h he would ha ve be e n e ligiblea bse nt his milita

ry le ave .” Id. at 615. Although we

he ld tha t the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt in favor of the C ity

wa s im prope r, we did not re a c h the que stion of whe the r the C ity ha d ra ise d

an issue of m at e ria l fa c t suffic ie n t to de fe a t Ko’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. B e c a

u se the issue in que stion m ust ha ve be e n “ de c ide d e xplic itly

or by -2-ne c e ssa

ry im plic a tion in [the ] pre vious disposition,” the la w of the c a se doc trine doe s not a pply
. Libe rty

Mut. Ins. C

o. v . Equal Emp’t Opportunity C omm’n , 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th C ir. 1982). 2. The distric t c ourt did e rr in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to Ko, be c a

use the C ity ha s shown a

“ ge nuine dispute ” of “ m a te ria l fa c t,” se e Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 56(a ), a s to whe the r Ko would ha

ve re c e ive d a

ste p inc re a s e “ w i th re a sona ble c e rta inty

ha d he . . . re m a ine d

c o ntinuously

e m ploy e d during [his] pe riod of [m ilita ry ] se rvic e .” 20 C
. F.R . § 1002.236(a

). 1 In re a c hing this c onc lusion, wevie wthe e vide nc e in the light m ost fa

v ora b le to the C ity , the nonm o ving pa rty . S e eDe l ta Sav . Bank v . Unite d State s , 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th C ir. 2001). The C ity pre s e nte d

e v ide nc e showing tha

t ste p inc re a se s do not
a utom a t ic a lly

oc c ur. Inste a d, a ll step inc re a se s a re disc re tiona

ry and ba se d

on the
m e rits of a

n offic e r’ s job pe rform anc e . 2 Inde e d, Ko’ s own e m ploy m e nt history shows tha t ste p inc re a se s are not a

utom a tic , give n his a c tua l pe rform anc e

1 B e c a u se we c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting Ko’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, we a lso va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s a w ard of attorne y s’ fe e s. 2 The M e m orandum

of Unde rsta

nding be twe e n the C ity

of La Ha bra and the La Ha bra Polic e Assoc iation (in e ffe c t during the re le v ant pe riod) provide s, “ All ste p inc re a se s a

re ba se d on m e rit a

nd m ust be re c om

m e nde d by the e m

ploy e e ’ s supe rvisor, subje c t to thea pprova l of the Polic e C hie f, or de signe e .”

-3-e va luations a nd his fa ilure to c om

ple te probation during the ty p ic a l pe riod. 3 Ko’ s pe rform a nc e wa s form a lly

e va luate d a fte r six m onths on the job, a t whic h tim e he
wa s e ligiblefor a

ste p i nc re a se . He did not re c e ive this ste p inc re a se be c a

u se of
c onc e rns a

bout his job pe

rform a nc e . Ko wa s ne xt e va luate d a fte r nine m onths on the j ob, a nd a ga i n he fa ile d to re c e i ve the ste p inc re a s e be c a use of c ontinue d
c onc e rns a

bout his job pe

rform a nc e . The C ity

a lso re quire s a l l ne w polic e offic e rs to c o m ple te a probationa

ry pe riod tha

t ty pic a l ly la sts for one y e a

r. Howe ve r, Ko’ s probat iona

ry pe riod wa s e xte n de d to fifte e n m o nths be c a u s e of his sub-sta

nda rd job pe rform an c e . Thus, vie wing the e vide nc e in a light m o st fa

vora b le to the C ity ,

3 The disse nt note s tha

t we e m pha siz e Ko’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e . Inde e d, we do foc us on this e vide nc e . The sta nda rd of re vie w for sum

m ary judgm e nt re quire s us to do so. The disse n t ignore s the sta

nda rd of re vie w, inste a d foc using on the e v ide n c e pre se nte d by Ko, the m o ving pa

rty . The disse nt im

pe rm i ssibly we ighs thee v ide nc e in re a c hing thec onc lusion tha t a ra tiona le jury

would find in favor of Ko. On a

m o t ion for sum

m ary judgm e n t, “ [i] t is not for the c o urt to e va luate the pe rsua sive ne ss of [the ] e vide nc e .” Alc antar v
. Hobart Se rv . , 800 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th C ir. 2015). -4-a

re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t it wa s not “ re a sona

bly c e rta in” tha

t Ko would ha ve re c e i v e d a

ste p inc re a se but for his milita ry se rvic e . 4 W e re c ogniz e tha

t Ko ha s pre se nte d c om

pe ting e vide nc e supporting a n infe re n c e tha

t he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

ste p inc re a se but for his milita ry se rvic e . W e pre viously

c onc lude d a s m

uc h in K o I , whe n we re ve rse d the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of the C ity . Howe v e r, “ [a ] t the sum m ary judgm e nt sta ge the judge ’ s func tion is not him se lf to we igh the e vide nc e and de te rm i ne the truth of them a tte r but to de te rm i ne whe the r the re is a ge nuine issue for tria l.” Ande r

son v . Libe rty

Lobby , Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). 3. On re m and, the c a se doe s not ne e d to be re a ssigne d to a diffe re nt distric t
c ourt judge . In de te rm ining whe the r the c a se should bere a ssigne d , we c onside r: (1) w he t h e r the or i g i n al judge w ould re a sona bly be e xpe c te d upon re m and to have substa

n t ia l d iffic u lty in putting out of hi s o r h er m i nd pre viously -e xpre sse d vie ws or findings de te rm ine d t o be e rrone o u s or ba se d on e vide nc e that m ust be re je c te d, (2) w he ther r eassignm e nt is a dvisa ble to pre se rve the a

ppe ar an ce o f justic e , and (3) w he the r re a ssignm e n t would e n ta il wa ste and duplic a t ion o ut of p roportion to any ga in in pre se rving the a

ppe ara nc e of justic e .

4 The distric t c ourt a lte rnative ly c onc lude d tha

t Ko wa s e n title d to step inc re a se s a s a

m atte r of la

wunde r Tilton v

. Missouri Pac i ficRailroad C

ompany , 376 U.S. 169 (1964). B ut the pa y inc re a se in Tilton de pe nde d e n tire ly on longe vity and ha d no m e rit-ba se d c om pone nt, whe re a s he re , the C ity ’ s ste p inc re a se s a re ba se d on both longevity and satisfa c tory

pe rform anc e re vie ws. Ac c ordingly , Tilton doe s not support a

grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to Ko. -5-Ev on v . Law Offic e s of Sidne y Mic k e ll , 688 F.3d 1015, 1034 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Arne tt , 628 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th C ir. 1979)). The

“ unusua l c i rc um sta

nc e s” ne c e ssa

ry for re a s signm e nt “ rare ly

e xist,” Gle n Holly Entm’t, Inc . v . Te k

tronix , Inc

. , 352 F.3d 367, 381 (9th C ir. 2003), a n d do not e xist he re . The distric t judge c a n a de quate l y

c onside r the C ity ’ s position on rem and. That c o nc lusion is e spe c i a lly wa rrante d, give n tha

t this judge ha s now gra

nte d
sum m ary judgm e nt for both pa

rtie s a nd tha t it will be

a jury

— n ot the judge

—

that will be re solving the

m a te ria l que stion of fa c t he re . RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D
.

-6-K

o v C ity of La H abra 14-55487/14-55705 W ardla w, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s la w of the c a se holding a

nd a g re e tha

t this c a se should not be

re a ssigne d to a

diffe re nt distric t c ourt judge . I be lie ve tha t the distric t c o urt judge got this c a se right upon re m a n d, howe ve r, so I disa gre e with the
m a jority ’ s re ve rsa l of sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Ko. To pre va i l on his USER

R A c l a im , Ko wa s re quire d to prove tha t he would have , “ w ith re a sona

ble c e rta inty ,” re c e ive d a

ste p inc re a s e . 20 C .F.R
. § 1002.236(a). A “ re a sona ble c e rta inty ” m e ans “ a high proba bility ,” not “ a

n
a bsolute c e rta inty .” Id. § 1002.213. The m a jority e m pha siz e s Ko’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e during his first ye ar on the j ob. At thefifte e n -m onth m ark, howe ve r, Ko’ s pe rform anc e e va luat ion indic a te d tha

t he ha d c o m

ple t e d a pe rsona l im

prove m e nt pla

n a nd a dditiona l tra ining, “ im

prove d gre a tly ,” “ o ve rc am e [his] note d de fic i e nc ie s,” and re c e ive d a ste p inc re a se . His ne xt pe rform anc e e va luation, whic h c o ve re d the five m onths be fore he le ft for m ilita

ry se rvic e and the se ve n m onths a fte r he re turne d, note d Ko’ s “ e xc e ptiona l work ha bits,” his “ a

bove av e ra ge ” produc tivity “ in a ll a re a s,”
and his “ bright futurein la

w e nforc e m e nt” ; ga

ve him an ove ra ll ra

ting of “ e xc e e ds sta nda rds” ; a nd a warde d him

anothe r ste p inc re a se . The Pre side nt of the La Ha bra Polic e Assoc i a tion a

tte ste d tha

t a ste p inc re a se re quire s only a “ m e e ts sta

nda rds” 

# FIL ED
D EC 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALSe va luation, a nd— a s the C i ty c onc e de d at ora l a rgum e nt in K

o I

— it wa s “ unusua l” for an offic e r not to re c e ive a

ste p inc re a se . Ac c ordingly , a ra tiona l jury would
ne c e ssa rily c onc lude tha

t Ko wa s re a sona

bly c e rta in to ha

ve re c e ive d a ste p inc re a se if he ha d re m a ine d c ontinuously e m ploy e d during his seve nte e n-m onth pe riod of m ilita

ry se rvic e . Se e Alc antar v . Hobart Se r v . , 800 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th C ir. 2015) (c iting Ande rson v . Libe rty Lobby , Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986)). 1 Finding for theC i ty

at tria l would im

pe rm i ssibly

re ly “ on a n a ssum ption tha t a
se rie s of unlike ly

e ve nts c ould ha

ve pre v e nte d the e m

p loy e e from

ga ining theright or be ne fit.” 20 C
. F.R . § 1002.213. I would the re fore a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of Ko.

1 B e c a use the se fa c t s a

re e ithe r undispute d or a

re a dm issions by

the C ity , the re are no ge nuine dispute s of m a te ria l fa c t. 2