Johnny McFarland v. Guardsmark, LLC ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                     FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHNNY MCFARLAND, on behalf of            
    himself and all others similarly
    No. 08-16953
    situated,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
             D.C. No.
    3:07-cv-03953-PJH
    v.
    ORDER
    GUARDSMARK, LLC,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 6, 2009*
    San Francisco, California
    Filed December 9, 2009
    Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Pamela Ann Rymer and
    M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.
    COUNSEL
    Daniel H. Qualls, Robin G. Workman, Qualls & Workman,
    San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.
    Martin D. Bern, Malcolm A. Heinicke, Munger, Tolles &
    Olson LLP, San Francisco, California; Fred A. Rowley, Jr.,
    *The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    16015
    16016            MCFARLAND v. GUARDSMARK
    Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, California, for
    the defendant-appellee.
    ORDER
    Johnny McFarland (“McFarland”) appeals from the district
    court’s decision denying his motion for partial summary judg-
    ment 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 sin-
    gle day. As McFarland did not raise this issue before the dis-
    trict court, see 
    id.,
     we do not consider it here. See Smith v.
    Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    PRINTED FOR
    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
    BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
    The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
    © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-16953

Filed Date: 12/9/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/14/2015