Kristine Phillips v. Marion County Sheriff's Office

Good Law
494 F. App'x 797
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 15, 201211-35833California813 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Kristine Phillips appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law and an evidentiary ruling made during trial. Specifically, Phillips appeals the district court’s order holding that she lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the arbitration award granting reinstatement of her employment and that Defendant Isham was entitled to qualified immunity. She also appeals the district court’s evidentiary ruling that excluded evidence of Isham’s resignation as the County sheriff on the grounds that it was unduly prejudicial.

We review a grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo. Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 859 (9th Cir.2002).

Because there were no facts in dispute, whether Phillips had a constitutionally protected property interest was a question of law for the judge. See e.g., Walker v. City of Berkeley, 951 F.2d 182, 183 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court appears to have misread the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the County and Sheriffs Association. The CBA requires the County to engage in binding arbitration if the Association (the employee’s bargaining agent) wishes to engage in arbitration.…

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.