Nicholas Stoica v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter C ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLAS D. STOICA, No. 21-15279
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05288-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
McDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER
COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nicholas D. Stoica appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various claims in connection with his employment
termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Stoica’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the bases of Eleventh
Amendment immunity and the applicable statute of limitations. Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stoica’s claim for wrongful
termination against The Boeing Company, successor-in-interest to McDonnell
Douglas Helicopter Company, as time-barred because Stoica failed to file his
action within one year of the claim’s accrual. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(4).
The district court properly dismissed Stoica’s claims against the Industrial
Commission of Arizona as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Krainski v.
Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th
Cir. 2010) (explaining that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the state or
its agencies and applies regardless of the nature of relief sought).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15279