Ralph B. Mundy v. Household Finance Corporation

885 F.2d 542 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1303 , 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,315 , 117 Lab.Cas. P 56,452 , 28 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 918 Ralph B. MUNDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-5605. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 1988. Decided Sept. 6, 1989. Gregory A. Wedner, Bergman & Wedner, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. G. Howden Fraser, McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before POOLE, REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. POOLE, Circuit Judge: 1 Ralph Mundy brought suit in a California state court against his former employer, Household Finance Corporation (hereafter HFC), claiming that his termination violated California and federal law. HFC, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 . The district court granted summary judgment for HFC on all claims. Mundy now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on his claims based on the…

I concur in the result.

Ralph Mundy brought suit in a California state court against his former employer, Household Finance Corporation (hereafter HFC), claiming that his termination violated California and federal law. HFC, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . The district court granted summary judgment for HFC on all claims. Mundy now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 , and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal.Gov’t Code § 12921. He also appeals the decision of the trial court to exclude evidence of HFC’s offer of payment in exchange for a release of claims in considering HFC’s second summary judgment motion.

This court has jurisdiction over his appeal of a final order of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment. Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1987). Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for…