Tsegia Haile v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital

MEMORANDUM

Tsegai Haile appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench and jury trial in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)); Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Haile’s Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) claim because Haile failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital complied with COBRA’s notification provision. See 29 U.S.C. § § 1163 (defining “qualifying event”), 1166(a) (setting forth notice requirements).

We cannot review Haile’s contentions that require examination of oral proceedings in the district court because Haile failed to include the relevant transcripts in the record on appeal as required by Fed. R.App. P. 10(b).…