Syed Ali v. Navy Federal Credit Union

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-16688
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYED NAZIM ALI, No. 22-16688

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:22-cv-03958-NC

v. MEMORANDUM* NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 12, 2023***

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his employment action alleging various claims under federal and state law. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d

1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2019). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.

Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ali’s claims arising out of his

termination because defendant was required to terminate Ali’s employment under

12 U.S.C. § 1785(d), and thus Ali did not plausibly allege a causal link between the

termination of his employment and any disability or protected activity. See 12

U.S.C. § 1785(d) (providing that a person who has been convicted of a criminal

offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust may not be employed by an

insured credit union); Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233,

1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (a plaintiff alleging failure to accommodate under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) must show that he suffered an adverse

action because of his disability); Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 849

(9th Cir. 2004) (a plaintiff alleging retaliation under the ADA must show that there

was a causal link between a protected activity and an adverse action); Vasquez v.

County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642, 646 (9th Cir. 2003) (same for a

retaliation claim under Title VII); Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 116 P.3d 1123,

1130 (Cal. 2005) (same for a retaliation claim under the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Ali’s complaint

2 22-16688 without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to

amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ali’s request, set forth in the opening brief, that this disposition be published

is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-16688