Case Name: Rigoberto CARDENAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-28
Citations: 553 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 12-55555
Parties: Rigoberto CARDENAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
Rigoberto CARDENAS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-55555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 10, 2014.
Filed Jan. 28, 2014.
Steven Lawrence Krongold, Krongold Law Corp., P.C., Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
George W. Abele, Esquire, Kelly Hsu, Paul Hastings LLP, Holly Ruth Lake, Esquire, Miller Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, E. Jeffrey Grube, Esquire, Paul Hastings LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: W. FLETCHER, M. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Rigoberto Cardenas, Jr. appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") on his federal retaliatory termination and state-law wrongful discharge claims. The district court based its grant of summary judgment on two grounds: (1) plaintiffs claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, and (2) even if they were not preempted, plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case on either claim sufficient to survive summary judgment. We affirm.
"[W]e may affirm the district court's ruling on the merits 'on any ground supported by the record.' " Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Van Asdale v. Int'l. Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We agree with the district court's conclusion that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination under federal law or wrongful termination under state law. We therefore need not reach the question of preemption, and express no views as to the district court's conclusions on that issue.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.