Sekardi

Sekardi v. Mail Well Commercial Printing Inc.

Good Law
146 F. App'x 87
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 4, 2005No. 04-35232; D.C. No. CV 02-1449 MWMCalifornia833 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Gary Sekardi (“Sekardi”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Mail-Well Commercial Printing (“Mail-Well”) and Graphic Communications International Union Local 767-M (“the Union”) on Sekardi’s claims of wrongful termination against Mail-Well and breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Gieg v. DDR, Inc., 407 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2005). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id.

Sekardi contends that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Union adequately investigated his grievance and deliberated before deciding not to take his grievance to arbitration. 1 We note at the outset that, even if the Union made an error in evaluating Sekardi’s grievance, the Union is liable only upon a showing of bad faith or discrimination. See, e.g., Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909, 916 (9th Cir.1995); Fristoe…

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.