Case Name: Bermore MALAVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UMG RECORDINGS INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-15
Citations: 334 F. App'x 120
Docket Number: No. 08-55633
Parties: Bermore MALAVE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UMG RECORDINGS INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
Bermore MALAVE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UMG RECORDINGS INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-55633.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2009.
Filed Oct. 15, 2009.
Moisés Alcides Aviles, Aviles & Associates, San Bernardino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Adam Levin, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bermore Malave ("Malave") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of UMG Recordings, Inc., et. al. ("UMG"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in concluding that the record lacks evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (summary judgment standard); Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir.2009) (summary judgment reviewed de novo). The district court liberally construed Ma-lave's complaint to encompass claims for disparate treatment on account of race and/or disability, retaliation, harassment, hostile work environment, violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It carefully considered each element of each claim and correctly concluded that there were no genuine factual issues that properly could be resolved only by a finder of fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). For the reasons set forth in the district court's order, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.