Anderson

MEMORANDUM ***

Edward Anderson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of AMR, the parent company of American Airlines, on his claims of age and race discrimination, retaliation, and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 1332, and we affirm.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Anderson’s second untimely filed opposition to summary judgment. See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684 , 688 (9th Cir.2007) (“District courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets....”); N.D. Cal. Local R. 7-3(a). *324 Anderson provided no justification for why the opposition was filed late. Given that the district court did accept Anderson’s first late filed opposition, it was well within its discretion to reject the second, so-called “amended” version.

II

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of AMR on Anderson’s age and race discrimination claims. Anderson provided no evidence to refute AMR’s non-discriminatory explanation for its differential treatment of Anderson — namely, that he was the only…