Case Name: Johnny MCFARLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-09
Citations: 588 F.3d 1236
Docket Number: No. 08-16953
Parties: Johnny MCFARLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PROCTER HUG, JR., PAMELA ANN RYMER and M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 588
Pages: 1236–1236

Head Matter:
Johnny MCFARLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-16953.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2009.
Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
Daniel H. Qualls, Robin G. Workman, Qualls & Workman, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Martin D. Bern, Malcolm A. Heinicke, Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee.
Before: PROCTER HUG, JR., PAMELA ANN RYMER and M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Johnny McFarland ("McFarland") appeals from the district court's decision denying his motion for partial summary judgment and granting partial summary judgment to Guardsmark, LLC in this dispute arising under Cal. Labor Code § 512. McFarland v. Guardsmark, LLC, 538 F.Supp.2d 1209(N.D.Cal.2008). The district court dismissed the remaining claims upon stipulation of the parties. We affirm for the reasons set out in the district court's thorough decision.
McFarland raises for the first time on appeal the factual issue of whether his signed employment agreement represents an actual agreement to take two on-duty meal periods in a single day. As McFarland did not raise this issue before the district court, see id., we do not consider it here. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.