Milas Clark, Jr. v. Raytheon Company

MEMORANDUM

Milas G. Clark, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging employment claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir.1993). We review for an abuse of discretion both the district court’s denial of a request for a continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 , 1100 (9th Cir.2006), and its denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262 . We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims Clark raised in his first Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) charge because Clark filed his lawsuit more than one year after the DFEH issued its right-to-sue letter. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b); Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir.2008) (plaintiff must file FEHA claims within one year after the DFEH issues a right-to-sue letter). Further, the district court properly…