Lunsford

MEMORANDUM **

James W. Lunsford (“Lunsford”) appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 to his former employer, LaSalle Property Management (“LaSalle”). Lunsford brought a “hybrid” breach of contract/unfair representation action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 , against LaSalle and IUOE Stationary Engineers Local 39 (“the Union”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law. Saman v. Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.1999). LaSalle fired Lunsford because of his demonstrated inability to connect with subordinates and his insubordination stemming from events occurring after Lunsford installed a surveillance system without first seeking approval from his supervisors. We conclude that the district court properly granted LaSalle’s Rule 50 motion because no reasonable jury could have found that LaSalle lacked just cause to terminate Lunsford for these reasons. 1 We agree with the district court’s assessment that the evidentiary record was not legally sufficient to support a…