Reynaldo Lopez v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REYNALDO LOPEZ, an individual, No. 17-56325
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04497-DSF-AJW
and
MEMORANDUM*
EUNICE DELGADILLO, an individual; et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Georgia
corporation and DOES, 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Reynaldo Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his diversity action alleging age discrimination under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262, 1264 (9th
Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s non-
discriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel
Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19 (Cal. 2000) (setting forth burden-
shifting framework for analyzing discrimination claims under the FEHA and
noting that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where, given the
strength of the employer’s legitimate reasons, countervailing circumstantial
evidence is too weak to raise a rational inference of discrimination).
We reject as meritless Lopez’s contentions concerning ineffective assistance
of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985)
(“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of
counsel.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 17-56325
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). We do not
consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to
the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-56325