Kliff
Kliff v. Hewlett Packard Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Barry Kliff appeals the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Hewlett Packard (“HP”) as to all claims.
A district court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004). Our review is governed by the same standard used by the trial court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); therefore, on review, 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. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). Summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004).
Upon review, we affirm the district court.
I.
This action arises out of the recruitment of Kliff for the position of “Chief of Staff’ to the Vice President of Internal Communications of HP, his acceptance of that offer, and the subsequent termination of Kliffs employment approximately three months later.