N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAVID C OUC H,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M OR GAN STANLEY & C O. INC .; M OR GAN STANLEY SM ITH B AR NEY, LLC , De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16749 D.C . No. 1:14 c v-00010-LJO-JLT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR O EDER , TASHIM A, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. David C ouc h a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to M o rgan Sta

nle y & C o. Inc . a

nd M orga n Sta nle y Sm ith B arne y , LLC (toge the r,

“ M orga n Sta nle y ” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 21 2016 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.From

Se pte m be r 2007 to Ja

nua ry 2013, C o uc h wa s e m

ploy e d a s a

M orga n Stan le y Fina nc i a l Advisor (“ FA” ), a

position tha

t M orga n Sta nle y tre ats a s fulltim e . M orga

n Sta nle y e m ploy e e s m ay

not e nga g e in c e rta in a c tivitie s outsidethe
sc ope o f the i r e m

ploy m e nt, inc l uding se rving on a m unic i pa l boa

rd, without prior writte n a pprova l. B e fore C ouc h be ga n working a

t M orga n Sta nle y , M orga

n Stan le y a pprove d C ouc h’ s outsidea c tivity re que st to “run[ ] for and pote ntia lly
se rv[e ] ” o n the Ke rn C ounty B oa rd of Supe rvisors (the “ B oa rd” ). In 2011, C ouc h be ga

n c am p a igning to be e le c te d to theB o ard. In Fe brua ry 2012, C o uc h subm itte d a

form a l outsidea c tivity

re que st to se rve on the B oa rd, whic h sta te d tha t the Supe rvisor position pa id $100,000 a

y e ar and re quire d 35 hours pe r we e k, 25 of the m during busine ss hours. C ouc h’ s re que st trigge re d
c onc e rns by

M orga n Sta n le y ’ s Hum an R e sourc e s a nd Le ga l De pa

rtm e n ts tha

t C ouc h would beuna

ble to de v ote suffic ie n t tim e to his c lie n ts a s a n FA a nd tha t the re m ight be a

c onflic t of inte re st be twe e n M orga n Sta nle y an d Ke rn C ounty , a M orga n Sta nle y c lie nt. C ouc h wa s e le c te d to theB oa rd on June 6, 2012. Onem onth be fore C ouc h
wa s to be sworn in, M orga n Sta nle y inform e d C o uc h tha

t he ne e de d

to c hoose be twe e n the FA and B oa

rd positions. In la

te De c e m be r 2012, C ouc h indic ate d tha t he would re m a in a s a

n FA with M orga

n Sta nle y . Howe ve r, le ss tha

n two we e ks
2late r, C ouc h wa s sworn in a s a Supe rvisor. Upon le arning tha t C ouc h ha d

ta ke n the e le c te d position, M orga n Sta nle y re ite ra te d that C ouc h c ould not ma inta in both jobs. Afte r C ouc h fa ile d

to indic ate whe the r he would ste p down from

e ithe r position, M orga

n Sta nle y te rm inate d C ouc h’ s e m

ploy m e nt in Ja

nua ry 2013. C ouc h sue d M orga

n Sta nle y for viola tions of C a lifornia

La b or C ode §§ 98.6, 1101(a ), and 1102, a

nd for inte ntiona l a

nd ne glige nt inte rfe re nc e with e xisting a nd prospe c tive e c o nom ic re lationships. M orga n Sta nle y m ove d for sum

m ary judgm e nt, a

nd the distric t c ourt gra

nte d the m otion. C o uc h a ppe a le d. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt. Lope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). W e m

ust “ de te rm ine whe the r, vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , the re are any

ge n uine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly
a pplie d the re le va

n t substa ntive la w.” Id. (c ita

tion omitte d). Se c tions 1101 a

nd 1102 of the

C a l ifornia La

b or C ode prohibit e m

ploy e rs from inte rfe ring with “the funda m e nta l right of e m

ploy e e s in ge ne ra l to e nga ge in politic a l a c t ivity .” Gay

Law Stude nts Ass’n v . Pac . Te l. & Te l. C o. , 595 P.2d 592, 610 (C a l. 1979) (c ita

tions omitte d). The pa

rtie s disputewhe the r an e m ploy e r viola te s §§ 1101(a) and 1102 by firing a n e m ploy e e who e n g a ge s in politic a l
a c tivity , re

gardle ss of the e mploy e r’s motivation , or only if the e m ploy e r ha d a
3politic a l re a son for te rm i nating thee m ploy e e . 1 Whe re , a s he re , the sta te supre m e
c ourt ha s not squa

re ly a ddre sse d the issue of sta te la w, “ a fe de ra l c ourt is obliga te d to follow the

de c isions of the

sta te ’ s inte rm e diate a

p pe lla te c ourts” unle ss the re is

“ c o nvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the sta te supre m e c ourt would de c ide [the issue ] diffe re ntly .” Ry man v . Se ars, Roe buc k & C o. , 505 F.3d 993, 995 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion omitte d). Two C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l de c isions ha ve he ld tha

t lia bility unde r §§ 1101(a ) and 1102 is trigge re d only if a n e m ploy e r fire s a

n e m ploy e e ba se d on a politic a l m o tive
. In A li v . L.A. Foc us Publ’n , 5 C a l. R p tr. 3d 791 (C t . App. 2003), the c ourt re ve rse d the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt to a

ne wspa p e r that fire d its
e ditor a fte r he c ritic i z e d a c ongre sswom an on a

loc a l ra dio show. Id. at 793, 799. The c ourt e xpla ine d tha

t §§ 1101 a

nd 1102 re fle c t “ [t] he public polic y prohibiting
e m ploy e rs from te rm inating a n e m ploy e e for e nga ging in politic a l a c tivity .” Id. at

1 Se c tion 1101(title d “ Politic a l a c tivitie s of e m p loy e e s; prohibition of pre v e n tion or c ontrol by

e m ploy e r” ) state s in pa

rt, “ No e m ploy e r sha ll m ake , a dopt, or e nforc e any rule , re gula tion, or polic y [f] orbidding or pre ve nting e m ploy e e s from e n g a ging or pa rtic ipating in politic s or from be c om i ng c andida

te s for public offic e . ” C a l. La bor C ode § 1101(a ). Se c tion 1102 (title d “ C o e rc ion or influe n c e of politic a l a c tivitie s of e m ploy e e s” ) sta

te s, “ N o e m ploy e r sha ll c oe rc e or influe n c e or atte m

p t to c oe rc e or influe nc e his e m ploy e e s through or by

m e ans of thre at of disc ha

rge or loss of e m

ploy m e nt to a dopt or follow or re fra in from a dopting or following a

ny pa rtic ula r c ourse or line of politic a l a c tion or politic a l a c tivity
. ” C a l. La

bor C ode § 1102. 4798. B e c a

use the e ditor a l le ge d he wa s fire d “ not be c a

u se the c onte nt of his
artic le s c o ntrave ne d the e d itoria l polic ie s or sta nda rds of the ne wspa

pe r, but be c a use outsideof the workpla c e he public ly c ritic iz e d an influe ntia l public offic ia l” the c ourt c onc lude d tha t it wa s e rror to gra

nt sum m a ry judgm e nt to the
e m ploy e r. Id. at 799. Simila rly , in a n unpublishe d de c ision, theC ourt of Appe a l he ld tha t a n e m ploy e r viola

te s §§ 1101 a

n d 1102 only

if it te rm inate s a

n e m ploy e e for a p olitic a l re a son, a s oppose d to a le gitim ate non-politic a l re a son. N av a v . Safe w ay Inc

. , No. F063775, 2013 W L 3961328, a

t *7-8, (C a l. C t. App. Jul. 31, 2013) (unpublishe d) (holding tha t a form e r Sa fe way

e m ploy e e , who c la i m e d he
wa s fire d for obje c ting to Sa fe way ’ s politic a l a ge nda by re m oving a

“ Gay /Le sbia n Pride M onth” poste r from the bre ak room , a de quate ly a l le ge d viola

tions of §§ 1101
and 1102). 2 The distric t c ourt thus c orre c tly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to M orga

n Stan le y on C ouc h’ s c la im s unde r §§ 1101(a ) and 1102. Eve n vie wing thefa c ts in the l ight m ost fa

vora ble to C ouc h, M orga

n Sta n le y fire d C o u c h for a

le gitim ate , a politic a l re a son: C ouc h c ould not work a s both a full-tim e FA and a

full-tim e

2 W e “ m ay

c onside r unpublishe d sta te de c i sions, e ve n though suc h opinions ha

ve no pre c e de ntia l va lue .” Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau v . Granite

State Ins. C o. , 330 F.3d 1214, 1220 n.8 (9th C ir. 2003) (c iting N une z v . C ity of San Die

go , 114 F.3d 935, 943 n.4 (9th C i r. 1997)). 5Supe rvisor. The Supe rvisor position wa s a full-tim e position tha t re quire d 25 hours pe r we e k during busine ss hours a nd a nothe r 10 hours outside

of busine ss hours. M orga

n Sta n le y like wise tre ats the FA position a s a full-tim e position. C ouc h’ s obse rvation tha

t som e FAs work from

hom e or tha

t no one m onitore d whe the r C ouc h wa s in theoffic e doe s not ne gate the fa c t tha t the FA position wa s
c onside re d full-tim e or tha t M orga n Sta nle y did not be lie ve C o u c h c ould de vote suffic i e nt tim e to his c lie nts whilesim ulta ne ously e m ploy e d a s a

full-tim e Supe rvisor. B e c a u se M orga

n Stanle y fire d C ouc h for a

le gitim ate , non-politic a l re a son, the d istric t c o urt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt to M orga

n Sta n le y on C ouc h’ s c la im s unde r §§ 1101(a ) and 1102. Furthe r, be c a use C ouc h’ s tortious inte rfe re nc e c la i m s a

nd § 98.6 c la im

are ba se d on M orga

n Sta nle y ’ s a lle ge d viola tion of §§ 1101(a

) and 1102, thedistric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to M orga

n Sta n le y on thosede rivative c la im s. AFFIRM E D.

6