Case Name: Kevin MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-21
Citations: 400 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 06-15847
Parties: Kevin MURRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 233–235

Head Matter:
Kevin MURRAY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-15847.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 13, 2008.
Submission Withdrawn April 10, 2008.
Resubmitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 21, 2010.
James P. Stoneman, II, Law Offices of James P. Stoneman, Claremont, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David J. Reis, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin Murray appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Alaska Airlines, Inc. ("Alaska"). Murray alleges that he was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against for whistleblowing against his employer, in violation of the public policy of California. See Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b). The district court granted summary judgment to Alaska based on collateral estoppel. We affirm.
After oral argument, we certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether, as a matter of California law, issue-preclusive effect should be given to a federal agency's investigative findings, when the subsequent administrative process provides the complainant the option of a formal adjudicatory hearing to determine the contested issues de novo, as well as subsequent judicial review of that determination, but the complainant elects not to invoke his right to that additional process. See Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 522 F.3d 920, 920 (9th Cir.2008) (order) ("Murray /"). The California Supreme Court accepted the certified question for review and, in August 2010, issued an opinion answering that question in the affirmative. See Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 860, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 237 P.3d 565, 577 (2010) ("Murray II").
The state supreme court's determination of California law is binding on us and is dispositive of this appeal. In response to Murray's administrative complaint under 49 U.S.C. § 42121, the Secretary of Labor found that Murray failed to establish a causal nexus between his protected activity and an adverse employment action. See Murray I, 522 F.3d at 921. Causation is an element of the claims Murray asserts in this action. See Murray II, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 237 P.3d at 569 n. 4; Murray I, 522 F.3d at 922-23 & n. 2. Under Murray II, the Secretary of Labor's finding on causation is entitled to preclusive effect here. Murray thus cannot establish an essential element of his claims. The judgment of the district court must therefore be affirmed.
In his supplemental brief, Murray argues that applying issue preclusion here would deny him the constitutional right to a jury trial. Assuming this argument has not been waived even though Murray failed to raise it earlier, see Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir.2001), Murray presents no legal authority to support his argument. The decision on which he relies, United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 421-22, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), addresses federal procedural law, not federal constitutional law. As a general matter, the Seventh Amendment does not bar application of the collateral estoppel doctrine. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 337, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Murray has not offered any authority for the proposition that this general rule does not apply here.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.