N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN C ER

VANTES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EM E R ALD C ASC ADE RESTAUR ANT SYSTEM S, INC ., DB A Ja c k -in-the -B ox, Inc ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15595 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00242-VPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Va l e rie P. C ooke , M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, WARD LAW , a

nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s . This is a Title VII e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination a

ppe a l in whic h the Pla i ntiff/Appe lla

nt, John C e rvante s, pre va ile d a fte r a jury tria l, a nd now c ha lle nge s 

# FIL E D MAR 17 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the d istric t c o urt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to his forme r e m ploy e r, Em e ra ld C a sc a de R e sta

ura nt Sy s te m s d/b/a Ja c k -in-the -B ox, on se v e ra l disc rim ination c la im s be fore tria l a s we ll a s the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to re duc e punitive dam a ge s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse in pa

rt, a ffirm in pa rt, a nd re m and. 1. The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to re duc e punitive dam a ge s is re ve rse d a nd re m ande d for re c o nside ra t ion in light of our inte rve ning de c i sion in Arizona v . ASARC O , 7 73 F.3d 1050 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). 2. C e rvante s a

rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt to Em e ra ld C a sc a de on his c la im s for re ta lia tion, hostile

work e nvironm e nt, a

nd c o nstruc tive disc h arge . W e re vie w gra nts of sum

m ary judgm e n t denov o. F.T.C

. v . Ste fanc hik , 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c ourt did not err in gra

n ting sum m ary judgm e n t on the se thre e c la im s a s the y we re not a dva n c e d until C e rvante s’ s opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt a

n d C e rvante s’ s c om pla i nt did not give

Em e ra ld C a sc a de notic e of the se the orie s of lia bility , unde r the “ libe ra l notic e ple a ding sta nda rd” of Fe d. R . C iv. P. 8. Se e Pic k e rn v . Pie r 1 Imports, Inc . , 457 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th C i r. 2006). B e c a use “ sum m ary judgm e nt is not a proc e dura l se c o nd c ha

nc e to fle sh out ina de quate ple a dings,” the distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t

to gra nt pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt on the se thre e the orie s be fore 2tria l . Se e W

asc o Prods., Inc . v . Southw all Te c hs., Inc
. , 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting Fle ming v . Lind-W aldoc k & C o. , 922 F.2d 20, 24 (1st C ir. 1990)). 3. In a footnote to his opening brie f, C e rvante s note s his obje c tion to the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to e xc lude from tria l a c om m e nt a b out fly ing the Am e ric an fla g. B ut C e rvan te s provide s no substa n tive argum e nt a s to how the distric t c ourt e rre d, so he ha s wa i ve d this issue on a ppe a l. Se e Ghahre mani v . Gonzale s , 498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th C ir. 2007). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. AFFIRM E D in par t; RE V E RSE D in par t; and RE M ANDE D on the fir st issue only .

3