Stephen Edwards v. Best Buy Company of Minnesota ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, No. 17-15642
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00014-DKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BEST BUY COMPANY OF MINNESOTA,
INC.; BESTBUY.COM, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David K. Duncan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 22, 2018***
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Stephen S. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his diversity action alleging state law tort claims stemming from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
alleged sexual assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Edwards
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
vicariously liable for their employee’s conduct. See Pruitt v. Pavelin, 685 P.2d
1347, 1357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (Arizona observes the general common law rule
that “an employer is vicariously liable only for the behavior of an employee who
was acting within the scope of his employment”); see also Arizona v. Schallock,
941 P.2d 1275, 1282-84 (Ariz. 1997) (en banc) (discussing factors courts evaluate
to determine whether an employee acted within the course and scope of his
employment).
We reject as without merit Edwards’s contentions that the district court was
biased against him.
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15642