NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENALDO NAVARRO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MENZIES AVIATION, INC., DBA Menzies, Defendant-Appellee. No. 21-15355 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-08157-VC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted April 11, 2022 * * San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, * * * District Judge. In this diversity action, Renaldo Navarro alleges that his form er em ployer, 

# FILED
MAY 16 2022 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honorable Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.Menzies Aviation, Inc. (Menzies), violated the California Fair Em ploym ent

Housing Act (FEHA) and California public policy by term inating him based on his race and national origin and by retaliating against him for raising concerns about another fueling supervisor. He also alleges that his term ination constituted intentional infliction of em otional distress (IIED). The district court granted
sum m ary judgm ent to Menzies. We affirm
. 1. For the first tim e in his opposition to the m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, Navarro raised allegations that the fueling supervisor harassed Filipino fuelers and Menzies was aware of and disregarded such harassm e nt. After considering supplem e ntal briefing on whether to reopen discovery , the district court declined to reopen discovery and refused to consider the new allegations. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Navarro’s new allegations. See Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Glaser , 945 F.3d 1076, 1086–87 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[I] f the com plaint does not include the necessary factual allegations to state a claim , raising such claim in a sum m ary judgm ent
m otion is insufficient to present the claim to the district court.” (quotations
om itted) (quoting Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1080 (9th Cir. 2008))); W

asco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Techs., Inc. , 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2006) (rejecting factual averm ents raised for the first tim e in opposition to
2sum m ary judgm ent). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to

reopen discovery. Navarro failed to show that he diligently pursued discovery and that reopening discovery would have precluded sum m ary judgm e nt. See Panatronic USA v. AT&T Corp. , 287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2002). 2. The district court did not err in granting sum m ary judgm ent to Menzies. Navarro’s FEHA discrim ination claim fails because he did not show that a sim ilarly situated individual was treated m ore favorably or that Menzies’ reason for his term ination—that Navarro harassed fuelers into signing a petition against another fueling supervisor—was pretextual. See Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A. , 349 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 2, 2004). Navarro’s FEHA retaliation and wrongful term ination against public policy claim s fails for a sim ilar reason—he failed to show that Menzies’ non-retaliatory reason for his term ination was pretextual. Finally, Navarro’s IIED claim fails because he failed to show that Menzies’ conduct was extrem e or outrageous. See Light v. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation , 221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668, 689 (2017). AFFIRMED.

3