Joyce Marie Smith v. Hughes Aircraft Co.

37 F.3d 1506 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Joyce Marie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO., Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55854. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 20, 1994. * Decided Sept. 27, 1994. Before: SNEED, WIGGINS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Joyce Marie Smith appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 claim against Hughes Aircraft Company ("Hughes"), her former employer. Smith also appeals the judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Hughes on her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e claim and a related state law claim. Smith contends that the district court erred by (1) ruling that her section 1981 claim was time barred, and (2) not excluding Hughes' representative and witness Kaye Ekker from the trial during the testimony of Smith's witnesses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. I. Statute of Limitations 3 A district court's ruling on the…