Vincenzini v. Transitamerica Services, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 24-7359
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS VINCENZINI, an individual, No. 24-7359 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 4:23-cv-00645-JSW v. MEMORANDUM*

TRANSITAMERICA SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2026 San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Dennis Vincenzini (“Vincenzini”) appeals the district court’s

order granting Appellee TransitAmerica Services, Inc.’s (“TASI”) motion for

summary judgment on claims arising from Vincenzini’s termination from

employment as a locomotive engineer. Vincenzini contends that his termination

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities while serving as his union’s safety

representative.

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo.

Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021). We

must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district

court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Soc. Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc.,

4 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2021). “We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of

discretion and reverse if the exercise of discretion is both erroneous and

prejudicial.” Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2022)

(quoting City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir.

2014)). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We reverse and remand with instructions.

I.

The district court erred in holding that TASI was entitled to summary

judgment. Vincenzini presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether his whistleblowing activity was a contributing factor to

his termination. See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703,

713 (2022) (explaining that California law “requires whistleblower plaintiffs to

show that retaliation was a ‘contributing factor’ in their termination, demotion, or

2 24-7359 other adverse action”). A “contributing factor” is any factor that “tends to affect in

any way the outcome of the decision.” Lawson, 12 Cal. 5th at 714. Appellee

conducted an audit of Vincenzini’s data recorder records on the same day the

Federal Railroad Association closed its investigation into his most recent

complaint. This temporal proximity is circumstantial evidence of retaliation, see

Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2003), and when considered

along with evidence of procedural irregularities at Vincenzini’s disciplinary

hearing, as well as comments from TASI management concerning Vincenzini’s

whistleblowing, creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his protected

activity was a contributing factor in his termination.

There are also genuine issues of material fact as to whether TASI would

have terminated Vincenzini absent his protected activity. At this step, the burden

is on TASI to present evidence that “the alleged action would have occurred for

legitimate, independent reasons.” Lawson, 12 Cal. 5th at 707; Cal. Labor Code §

1102.6. Vincenzini presented evidence of possible unreliability of the data

recorders, the lack of a formalized disciplinary policy regarding positive train

control and automatic brake valve violations, and past treatment of employees who

were not terminated for similar violations. In light of that evidence, TASI’s

evidence is inadequate to meet its burden to prove its same-decision defense by

3 24-7359 clear and convincing evidence, see Lawson, 12 Cal. 5th at 717–718, and

consequently, there is a genuine issue of material fact.

For the same reasons as those outlined above on Vincenzini’s statutory

claim, there are genuine disputes of material fact on his claim for wrongful

termination in violation of public policy. We remand both claims for further

proceedings.

II.

The district court did not err in excluding portions of paragraphs 15-17 of

the declaration of Marc Beauchamp, a TASI locomotive engineer, for failure to

provide an expert report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).

To the extent those paragraphs consist of Beauchamp’s interpretation of data that

was provided to him for analysis for this case, they constitute retained expert

testimony. See Goodman v. Staples the Off. Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826

(9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

To the extent the district court excluded witness declarations for lack of

foundation or as speculative, we vacate those evidentiary rulings so that the

witnesses—Marc Beauchamp and Jordan Coleman—may be permitted to lay

foundation at trial. The district court also erred to the extent it deemed the

declarations hearsay, because “[e]ven . . . declarations that do contain hearsay are

admissible for summary judgment purposes because they ‘could be presented in an

4 24-7359 admissible form at trial.’” Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d

840, 846 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.

2003)).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

5 24-7359