Shula Ray v. Hilton Hotels, Corp.

5 F.3d 539 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Shula RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HILTON HOTELS, CORP., et al, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-56391. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 2, 1993. * Decided Sept. 7, 1993. 1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-90-5971-HLH, Harry L. Hupp, District Judge, Presiding. 2 C.D.Cal. 3 AFFIRMED. 4 MEMORANDUM *** 5 Before: BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI and BOGGS, ** Circuit Judges. 6 Shula Ray appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hilton Hotels and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Union. We review de novo. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986). 7 A. Ray failed to present sufficient evidence that the Union breached its duty of fair representation, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1967); summary judgment in favor of the Union was therefore warranted. 8 B. As the district court correctly granted summary judgment in…