facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

(2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual

allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the

alleged] misconduct”); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 294 P.3d 49, 66 (Cal. 2013)

(the protected characteristic must be a substantial motivating factor for the

employment decision for a FEHA discrimination claim); Aguilar v. Avis Rent A

Car Sys., Inc., 980 P.2d 846, 851-52 (Cal. 1999) (setting forth requirements of

harassment claim under FEHA); Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022,

1032-33 (Cal. 1994) (setting forth requirements of claim for wrongful termination

in violation of public policy); Patten v. Grant Jt. Union High Sch. Dist., 37 Cal.

Rptr. 3d 113, 117 (Ct. App. 2005) (setting forth the elements and providing

framework for analyzing retaliation claims under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5).

The district court properly denied Roy’s motion to remand the action to state

court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See

2 20-55719 Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (requirements for diversity

jurisdiction under § 1332); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366

F.3d 972, 974 n.2 (9th Cir 2004) (denial of a motion to remand a removed case is

reviewed de novo).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Roy’s postjudgment

motion for violating the local rules. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-4; Bias v. Moynihan, 508

F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for district court’s compliance

with its local rules).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-55719