Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles , 581 F. App'x 673 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO, No. 12-56279
INC.,
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-05346-AHM-RC
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
Lone Star Security & Video (“Lone Star”) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of this case after that court determined that Lone Star had not preserved a
number of its claims and that no issues remained to be resolved.
I.
There is no authority for Lone Star’s contention that our reversal of the
district court’s original summary adjudication order, see Lone Star Sec. & Video,
Inc. v. City of L.A., 584 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2009), reset the proceedings and
effectively nullified the Final Pretrial Conference Order (“FPTC Order”). The
FPTC Order remains in effect. If Lone Star wished to preserve certain claims, it
had an affirmative duty to make that intention clear to the district court. See
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
Because Lone Star failed to comply with that duty, it waived those claims not
disposed of by the motion for summary judgment and not included in the FPTC
Order.
II.
Lone Star also did not seek modification of the order and does not argue, let
alone demonstrate, that it would suffer manifest injustice if the FPTC Order is not
modified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. The
district court’s decision regarding “the pretrial phase of [this] litigation” was
2
clearly within its “broad discretion.” Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364,
369 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing FDIC v. Glickman, 450 F.2d 416, 419 (9th Cir. 1971)).
AFFIRMED.
3