Court Opinion

ID: 9894142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 17:01:04.709699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:48.658336
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      OCT 31 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on              No.    22-35354
behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
                                                D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00511-MO
                 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES
MIDWEST, LLC; et al.,

                 Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                   Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted October 18, 2023
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: KOH and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge.

      Taylor Lemons appeals the district court’s dismissal of count two of his

putative class action against Walgreen Pharmacy Services Eastern, LLC or

Walgreen Pharmacy Services Western, LLC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
12(b)(6). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a

claim. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.

2011). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed count two of Lemons’s action because

Lemons failed to allege specific facts sufficient to show that his employment with

Walgreen Eastern or Walgreen Western was terminated. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 686 (2009) (“[T]he Federal Rules do not require courts to credit a

complaint’s conclusory statements without reference to its factual context.”).

“Termination of employment contemplates a severance of the employment

relationship rather than a mere temporary cessation of work.” State ex rel. Nilsen

v. Johnston, 377 P.2d 331, 333–34 (Or. 1962). To determine whether a termination

took place, a trier of fact must “consider[] . . . all of the circumstances.” Id. at 334.

Here, there is only one specifically alleged fact that Lemons contends shows a

termination occurred: the internal, corporate merger of two subsidiaries that are

both wholly owned by Walgreen Co. But that alleged fact, in and of itself, does not

establish a termination occurred under the totality of the circumstances. All other

facts specifically alleged in the complaint show continuity in Lemons’s

employment and not severance.

      Because we conclude that Lemons’s claim was properly dismissed, we do

not reach the question of whether claim two is barred by the statute of limitations.

                                            2
AFFIRMED.

            3