Case Name: Jimmy KUANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEL AIR MART, a California corporation and Does, 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-08
Citations: 707 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 16-16956
Parties: Jimmy KUANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEL AIR MART, a California corporation and Does, 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: M, SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BATES, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 476–476

Head Matter:
Jimmy KUANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEL AIR MART, a California corporation and Does, 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16956
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed December 08, 2017
Douglas A. Applegate, Attorney, George M. Lee, Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Apple-gate, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Lindsay Goulding, Derek Haynes, Colleen Howard, Attorney, Porter Scott, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: M, SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BATES, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable John D. Bates, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jimmy Kuang appeals the district court's order granting Bel Air Mart's motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Even if Huang's declaration and attachments were admissible, the district court did not err in dismissing Kuang's claim for breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), because Kuang failed to exhaust the grievance procedures required by the CBA. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). Because Kuang informed the district court, both orally and in his written submissions, that he waived the argument that his failure to exhaust was excused due to the union's breach of its duty of fair representation, this argument is waived on appeal and we do not reach it. See Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2013). Because Kuang waived his hybrid claim, we do not reach his remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.