Heinemann

MEMORANDUM *

Laura Heinemann appeals from various rulings of the district court concerning the jury instructions, the use of a general verdict form and the admissibility of evidence. Computer Associates International, Inc., *595 now named CA, Inc., appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its claims for injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The parties are aware of the facts and procedural history of this case so we need not repeat them here. We affirm with respect to the issues Heinemann appeals (No. 07-56682) and reverse and remand with respect to the issue CA appeals (No. 08-55064).

I

Heinemann makes several arguments regarding the jury instructions. We review de novo a claim that a jury instruction misstated the law. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir.2005). We review the district court’s formulation of the jury instructions for abuse of discretion. Id.

Heinemann argues that the district court’s composite retaliation jury instruction misstated the law concerning Heine-mann’s four separate retaliation claims. We disagree. Heinemann cannot identify any portion of the composite instruction that misstated the law. Compare 42 U.S.C. §…