Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

254 F. App'x 568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2007

DocketNo. 05-56446

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 F. App'x 568 (Marlo 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.

Bluebook

Marlo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 254 F. App'x 568 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Mario appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United Parcel Service (“UPS”) on his claim that UPS misclassified its Full-Time Supervisors (“FTS”) as nonexempt employees. Summary judgment is appropriate where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Mario has raised material issues of fact related to whether the FTS “customarily and regularly exercise! ] discretion and independent judgment.” Cal.Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(l)(A)(l)(d) (2005). Accordingly, summary judgment as to that issue was improper.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Mario appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United Parcel Service (“UPS”) on his claim that UPS misclassified its Full-Time Supervisors (“FTS”) as nonexempt employees. Summary judgment is appropriate where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Mario has raised material issues of fact related to whether the FTS “customarily and regularly exercise! ] discretion and independent judgment.” Cal.Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(l)(A)(l)(d) (2005). Accordingly, summary judgment as to that issue was improper.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F. App'x 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlo-v-united-parcel-service-inc-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack