McFarland v. GUARDSMARK, LLC

Ninth Circuit

McFarland v. GUARDSMARK, LLC

588 F.3d 1236, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26796, 2009 WL 4643227

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 2009

Docket08-16953

StatusPublished

This text of 588 F.3d 1236 (McFarland v. GUARDSMARK, LLC) 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

McFarland v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, 588 F.3d 1236, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26796, 2009 WL 4643227 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny McFarland (“McFarland”) appeals from the district court’s decision denying his motion for partial summary judgment and granting partial summary judgment to Guardsmark, LLC in this dispute arising under Cal. Labor Code § 512. McFarland v. Guardsmark, LLC, 538 F.Supp.2d 1209(N.D.Cal.2008). The district court dismissed the remaining claims upon stipulation of the parties. We affirm for the reasons set out in the district court’s thorough decision.

McFarland raises for the first time on appeal the factual issue of whether his signed employment agreement represents an actual agreement to take two on-duty meal periods in a single day. As McFarland did not raise this issue before the district court, see id., we do not consider it here. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

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