Granillo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
This text of 363 F. App'x 453 (Granillo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Anthony R. Granillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his “hybrid” action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., 764 F.2d 663, 665-66 (9th Cir.1985), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as untimely because Granillo filed it more than six months after his claims accrued. See id. at 669 (explaining that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the claim accrued). The action was untimely even if, as Granillo contends, the claim accrued on November 14, 2007.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
363 F. App'x 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granillo-v-united-parcel-service-inc-ca9-2010.