Miller v. California

MEMORANDUM **

This is a Title VTI retaliation case. Michael Miller appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer. We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000).

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any” demonstrate “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The substantive law defines which facts are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. *593 242, 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

To prevail on summary judgment, the moving party carries the initial burden to show that no genuine issues of material fact exist. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Celotex, Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). “Once the moving party has carried that burden, it then shifts to the non-moving party, who must present evidence that there is indeed a…