Mitchell v. Black & Decker (USA) Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Arthur A. Mitchell appeals from the district court’s grant of summary adjudication on his age discrimination claim, a jury verdict on his breach of contract claim, and denials of his motions for a new trial, for reconsideration of the summary adjudication ruling, and for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication. See California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772 , 776 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that the decision to grant of a motion for summary adjudication is reviewed de novo). Mitchell failed to present evidence that Defendants’ legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Mitchell and for failing to offer him another job were pretextual. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221-22 (9th Cir.1998) (describing the requirements for a showing of pretext). Nor did the district court *653 abuse its discretion in denying Mitchell’s motion for reconsideration. Although the evidence introduced at trial did show that one of Defendants’ declarations submitted in support of the summary adjudication motion contained false statements, that evidence still…