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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 KE VI N MUR R AY ,

P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v . A L A S K A A I R L I N E S , I N C .,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lle e . N o. 06- 15847 D . C . N o . C V -0 5 -0 3 6 3 3 -M JJ 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 M a rt i n J . J e nki ns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 13, 2008 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia S ubm i s s i on W i thdr a w n A pr i l 10, 2008 R e s ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , M cK E O W N an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e vi n M urr a y appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e ntry of s um m a ry j udgm e nt i n favor of A l as ka A i rl i nes, Inc. (“ A l as ka”) . M urray a l l eges thathe w as w r o n g f u lly te rm in a te d a n d r e ta lia te d a g a in s t f o rw h is tle b lo w in g a g a in s t h is e m p lo y e r , in v io la tio n o f th e p u b lic p o lic y o f

C a lif o rn ia . See C a l . L aborC ode



# FI LED OC T 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

§ 1102. 5( b) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o A l a s kaba s e d on c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l . W e a f f i rm. A f t e ror a l a r gum e nt , w e c e rt i f i e d t o the C a l i f

orni aS upr e m e C ourtthe que s t i on w he the r , a s am a tt e rof C a l i f orni al a w , i s s ue - pr e c l us i ve e f f e c ts houl d be gi ve n t o af

e de r a l a ge nc y ’ s i nve s t i ga t i ve f i ndi ngs , w he n the s ubs e que nt adm i ni stra t i ve process prov i des the com pl ai nantthe op t i on of a f orm al adj ud i ca t ory heari ng t o d et erm i ne the cont es t ed i ss ues de nov o, as w el l as s u b s e q u e n t ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th a t d e te rm in a tio n , b u t th e c o m p la in a n t e le c ts n o t to in v o k e h is r ig h t to th a t a d d itio n a l p r o c e s s . See M urray v . A laska A i rl i nes, Inc. , 522 F . 3d 92 0, 92 0 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( order) ( “Murray I ” ). T he C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rt a c c e pt e d the c e rt i f

i e d que s t i on f

orr e vi e w a nd, i n A ugus t2010, i s s ue d a n opi ni on a n s w e r in g th a t q u e s tio n in th e a f f irm a tiv e . See M

urray v . A laska A i rl i nes, Inc. , 23 7 P . 3d 56 5, 57 7 (C al . 20 10 ) ( “Murray I I” ) . T he s t a t e s upr e m e c ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of C a l i f orni al a w i s bi ndi ng on us a nd i s di s pos i t i ve of

thi s appe a l . I n r e s pons e t o M urr a y ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c om pl a i nt u n d e r4 9 U .S .C . § 4 2 1 2 1 , th e S e c r e ta ry o f L ab o rf o u n d th a t M u rr a y f

a ile d to e s t abl i s h ac aus a l ne xus be tw e e n hi s pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c tio n . See M

urray I, 5 2 2 F. 3 d a t9 2 1 . Cau s a t i o n i s a n e l e me n to f th e c l a i ms M u rr a y a s s e rts in th is a c tio n . See M urray I I, 2 3 7 P .3 d a t 5 6 9 n .4 ; Murray I, 5223

F . 3d at92 2-23 & n. 2. U nd er Murray I I, the S e c r e t a ry of

L abor ’ s f

i ndi ng on causat i on i s e nt i t l ed t o p re cl usi ve ef fe cthere . M urray thu s c anno tes t abl i sh an es se nt i al el em entof hi s c l ai m s. T he j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourtm ustthere fore be a f f i rm e d. In hi s s up pl em ent al bri ef , M urray argues thatappl yi ng i ss ue precl usi on here w ou l d d eny hi m the const i tut i on al ri gh tt o a j ury tri al . A ss um i ng thi s argum enthas n o t b e e n w a iv e d e v e n th o u g h M u rr a y f a ile d to r a is e it e a r lie r , se e D ev er eaux v. A bb ey , 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , M u rr ay p r e s e n ts n o le g a l au th o r ity to s u p p o rt h is a r g u m e n t. T h e d e c is io n o n w h ic h h e r e lie s , U ni te d State s v . Utah C ons tr uc t i on & Mi ni ng C o. , 38 4 U . S . 39 4, 42 1-22 (196 6), addres se s f eder al p r o c e d u r a l la w , n o t f

e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l la w . A s ag e n e r a l m a tte r , th e S e v e n th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t b a rap p lic a tio n o f th e c o lla te r a l e s to p p e l d o c tr in e . See P a rkla n e H

o si ery C o . v. Sh o re , 43 9 U . S . 32 2, 33 7 (19 79 ). M urray has no toffe re d a n y au th o r ity f

o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t th is g e n e r a l ru le d o e s n o t ap p ly h e r e . AF F I RME D.