Paulette Weston v. Bernard Harrigan

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Paulette Weston (‘Weston”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees Bernard Harrigan and Carlos Benavidez (collectively “Officers”) and the Washington State Liquor Control Board. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case so they are not repeated here.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Paul Weston’s testimony because it would not have helped determine a fact in issue. See Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2005) (upholding district court’s evidentiary determination because the testimony at issue would not have assisted in determining a fact in issue). The use of an altered license was not a “fact in issue” because the record is devoid of any evidence that the underage operative produced an altered license when asked for her identification.

The Liquor Control Board Officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) and Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009),…