Randal Anderson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Randal Anderson (“plaintiff’ or “Anderson”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims that defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“defendant” or “Union Pacific”) breached an implied-in-fact contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating his employment. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Nicholson v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc., 580 F.3d 1116 , 1122 n. 1 (9th Cir.2009).

Although the district court held that Anderson did not have an implied-in-fact contract limiting his termination to good cause, it is unnecessary to reach that issue because there is an alternative ground on which to affirm the district court’s judgment. Even if the alleged implied-in-fact contract existed, defendant had good cause, as a matter of law, to terminate Anderson. As such, summary judgment was also warranted on plaintiffs claim based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089, 1112 (2000) (“insofar as the employer’s acts are directly actionable as a breach of an implied-in-fact contract term, a…