John M. Huey Cheryl Huey v. Honeywell, Inc.

Good Law
82 F.3d 327·96 Daily Journal DAR 4978·1996 WL 207834·11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1098·44 Fed. R. Serv. 122
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 199694-15748California3,129 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ferguson, J.

Plaintiffs, John M. Huey and Cheryl Huey, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, Honeywell Inc., with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the breach of employment contract claim and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

I. Standard of Review

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. An appellate court reviews a district court’s determination of state law de novo. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1220-21 , 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991).

II. Factual and Procedural Background

The facts of this case as presented to the district court, viewed in the light most…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.