Hardwick

MEMORANDUM **

William Hardwick, Keir Hart, and Michael Fears (“Appellants”) appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Complete Skycap Services, Inc. (“CSSI”). Specifically, Appellants contend that a genuine issue of material fact exists on two of Appellants’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—first, that CSSI violated anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3), and second, that CSSI violated minimum wage provisions of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 , 203(m). We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003).

Summary judgment will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court will view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw any reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 443 (9th Cir.1995).…

concurring in

the judgment:

Briefing submitted by William Hard-wick, Keir Hart, and Michael Fears (collectively, Hardwick) fails to comply with Circuit Rule 28-2.8. Citing to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Facts in Support of Their Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is non-compliant because the *45 Statement is not itself evidence in support of a factual assertion. Hardwick was given two opportunities to file a conforming brief, but has not done so. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal with prejudice. See Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissing appeal where plaintiff made general factual assertions without citation to the record); N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir.1997) (“[W]hile the opening brief is replete with assertions of fact and assertions about the record, it contains a mere handful of generalized record citations. The brief leaves it up to the court to attempt to find the asserted information; alas, much of it is not there at all.” (citations to rules omitted)).