UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S C O T T T E U T S C H E R , a n in d iv idu a l, P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t, v. R I VE R S I DE S HE R I F F S AS S OC I AT I ON ; R I VE R S I DE S HE R I F F S AS S OC I AT I ON LE GA L DEF ENSE TR UST; J AM ES L. C U N N IN G H A M , i nd i vi du al l y and as an A gentof the R i vers i de S heri ff s A s s oc i a t i on/R i ve r s i de S he r i f f s A s s oc i a t i on L e g a l D e f

e n s e T ru s t, D e f

e n d a n ts - c o u n te r - c la im an ts - A p p el l ees, a nd T A N Y A C O N R A D , i nd i vi du al l y and as an A gentof the R i vers i de S heri ff s A s s oc i a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56827 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 2 0 8 - R HW- OP C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia , R i ve r s i de ORDER

B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , K L E IN F E L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ppe l l e e R i ve r s i de S he r i f f s ’ A s s oc i a t i on L e ga l D e f e ns e T rus t ’ s P e t i t i on f

or R e h e a r in g f

ile do n Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 1 2 is g r an te d , w ith o u t f u rth e ro r a l ar g u m e n t.

# FI LED JU L 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he m em orandu m di sposi t i on fi l ed on June 25 , 20 12 i s r epl ac ed. W e f i l e an am ended m em orandu m di sposi t i on concurrent l y w i th thi s order . N o f u rth e rp e titio n s s h a ll b e e n te rta in e d .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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 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 S C O T T T E U T S C H E R , a n in d iv idu a l, P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t, v. R I VE R S I DE S HE R I F F S AS S OC I AT I ON ; R I VE R S I DE S HE R I F F S AS S OC I AT I ON LE GA L DEF ENSE TR UST; J AM ES L. C U N N IN G H A M , i nd i vi du al l y and as an A gentof the R i vers i de S heri ff s A s s oc i a t i on/R i ve r s i de S he r i f f s A s s oc i a t i on L e g a l D e f

e n s e T ru s t, D e f

e n d a n ts - c o u n te r - c la im an ts - A p p el l ees, a nd T A N Y A C O N R A D , i nd i vi du al l y and as an A gentof the R i vers i de S heri ff s A s s oc i a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56827 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 2 0 8 - R HW- OP AME ND E D 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 

# FI LED JU L 17 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R obe rtH . W ha l e y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 10, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , K L E IN F E L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l antS cottT eut sc her ( T eut sc her) appeal s f rom the di stri ct court ’ s ordergrant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o the defendant s. B ec ause the part i es a r e f a m iliarw ith th e f

a c tu a l an dp r o c e du r a l h is to ryo f th is c a s e , w e r e p e a t o n ly thos e f a c t s ne c e s s a ryt o r e s ol ve the i s s ue s r a i s e d on appe a l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm in p art an dr e v e r s e in p art. W e r ev er se th e d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n T eu tsch er ’s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m unde rthe E m pl oy e e R e t i r e m e ntI nc om e S e c ur i tyA c t( E R I S A ) , 29 U . S . C . § 1001 e t

s e q. T o s u rv iv e s u m m aryju d g m e n t a t th e p r e te x t s ta g e , a pl ai nt i ff “ m ustprod uce s uffi ci entevi dence t o rai se a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i alfa ct as t o w h eth er th e em p l o yer’ s p ro fferedn o n d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n i s m erel y a pret extfor di sc ri m i nat i on . ” D om i ng uez- C urryv. N ev . T ransp. D ep’t , 424 F . 3d 1027, 1037 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . “ T he pl a i nt i f f c an pr ove pr e t e xt( 1) i ndi r e c t l y , by show i ng thatthe em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed expl anat i on i s unw orthy of cr edence be c aus e i ti s i nt e rna l l yi nc ons i s t e ntorothe rw i s e notbe l i e vabl e , or( 2) di r e c t l y , by show i ng thatun l aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on m ore l i kel y m ot i vat ed the em pl oyer . ” R aad3

v . Fa ir b a n k

s N . Sta rB o r o u gh Sc h . D is t. , 323 F . 3d 1185, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 2003) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). “ A l l of the evi dence— w hether di re ctor i nd i re ct

— i s t o b e c on si dere d cum ul at i vel y. ” I d. T he am ou ntof evi dence re qu i re d t o avo i d sum m ary j ud gm enti s “ m i ni m al . ” N ic h o ls o n v . H

y a n n is A ir Serv . , Inc. , 5 8 0 F .3 d1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . “W e h a v e h e ldth a t v e rylittle ev id en ce is n ec es sa ry to ra ise ag en u in e iss u e o f f ac t reg ar d in g an em p lo ye r’s m ot i ve; any i nd i cat i on of di sc ri m i nat ory m ot i ve m aysuff i ce t o rai se a quest i on that can o nl y be r es ol ved b y afa ct -f i nd er . ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). H e r e , T e ut s c he rof

f e r s s uf f i c i e nta dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e t o r a i s e age nui ne i s s ue o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to p r e te x t. I n p artic u lar , T e u ts c h e r ’s e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s to ld b y P atM cN am ara (M cN am ara) an dJam es C u n n i n g h am (C u n n i n g h am ) th atT an ya C o n r a d( C o n r a d ) r e c a n te dh e ra c c u s a tio n s ab o u t T e u ts c h e r ’s a lle g e dm is c o n du c t is s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e tha tC onr a d’ s a c c us a t i ons w e r e notthe true r e a s on f or T eu t sch er’ s t erm i n at i o n . A l th o u g h th i s ev i d en ce co n t ai n s h earsay w i th i n h earsay, it is a d m is s ib le u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le s o f E v id e n c e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( D ) a n d8 0 5 . See F e d. R . E v id . 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 5 ; P alm e rv . P i one e rI nn A s s oc s . , L td. , 338 F .3 d9 8 1 , 9 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; L am bert v. A cker ley , 180 F . 3d 997, 1008 & n. 12 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). O ther e vi dence al so sugg es t s pre t ext , such as4

C un ni ng ham ’ s s t at em entt o T eut sc her that“ [w ] e quest i on your l oyal ty t o P at [ M c N a m a r a ] i n the W i nc he l l c a s e ” a nd the t i m i ng of T e ut s c he r ’ s t e rm i na t i on. B e c au s e T e u t s c h e rr a i s e s ag e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o p r e t e x t , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n gr ant i ng the de f e nda nt s s um m aryj udgm e nt o n T e u ts c h e r ’s E R I S A r e ta lia tio n c la im . F orthe s a m e r e a s on, w e r e ve r s e the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm enton T eut sc her’ s C al i forni a s t at e l aw c l a i m s othe rtha n f

orde f a m a t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm e ntt o the defe nd ant s on T eut sc her’ s def am at i on cl ai m because T eut sc her di d n otprod uce s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to r a is e ag e n u in e is s u e o f f a c t a s to m a lic e . See C a l . C i v. C ode § 4 7 ( c ) ; N

oel v. R i ve r Hi l l

s W i l sons, Inc. , 7 C a l . Rptr . 3d 216, 221- 22 ( C t . A pp. 20 03 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm e ntt o R i ve r s i de S he r i f f s ’ A s s oc i a t i on L e ga l D e f e ns e T rus t( L D T ) be c aus e T e ut s c he rpr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha tL D T ha d a nyr ol e i n the de c i s i on t o f i r e hi m orha d s i gni f

i c ant co n tro l o v er h i s d ai l y act i v i t i es. I n l i ghtof

ourc onc l us i ons , w e ne e d notr e a c h the r e m a i ni ng i s s ue s r a i s e d by th e p a rtie s . F o rth e f

o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f irm in p art an dr e v e r s e in p art. W e5

deny T eut sc her’ s r equestthatthe ca se on re m and b e a ss i gn ed t o a di ff er entdi stri ct ju d g e . Se e U

ni te d States v . L

y ons , 4 7 2 F .3 d1 0 5 5 , 1 0 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . T he c a s e i s he r e byr e m a nde d t o the di s tr i c tc ourtf ortr i a l a ga i ns tR i ve r s i de S he r i f f s ’ A s s oc i a t i on and C unni ngha m on T e ut s c he r ’ s E R I S A r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m and C a lif o rn ias ta te law c la im s o th e rth an f o rd e f a m a tio n . E a c h p artys h a ll b e arits o w n co st s. AF F I RME D I N P AR T , RE V E RS E D I N P AR T , AN D R E MAND E D.