Fadi Saba v. Unisys Corporation

MEMORANDUM

Fadi Saba appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Saba failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. See id. at 892 (summary judgment properly granted where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination with evidence of pretext).

The district court properly denied as moot Saba’s partial motion for summary judgment.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Saba’s motion to reconsider because Saba did not identify any grounds for relief from the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion…