Veronica D. Esparza v. Precision Castparts Corporation, an Oregon Corporation

67 F.3d 306 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Veronica D. ESPARZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRECISION CASTPARTS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-35467. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 1995. Decided Sept. 26, 1995. Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 * At the end of appellant Esparza's case, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law against her as to claims of unlawful conduct taking place prior to August 21, 1991 ("the time-barred claims"). 1 In doing so, the district court erred. A factual question existed as to whether those claims constituted part of a continuing violation. However, the error was non-prejudicial. 3 In order to establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must show a series of related acts, one or more of which falls within the limitations period. Green v. Los Angeles County Superintendent of Sch., 883 F.2d…