James Blankinship v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 14, 202422-16849California546 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES BLANKINSHIP, No. 22-16849

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00072-RM

v.

MEMORANDUM*

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2024 San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, HAMILTON,** and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. This appeal is controlled by our opinion issued today in DeFries v. Union

Pacific Railroad Co., __F.4th __, No. 23-35119 (9th Cir. June 14, 2024). Like

plaintiff DeFries, plaintiff-appellant James Blankinship worked as a conductor for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. defendant-appellee Union Pacific…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.