STANLEY H. BRANDON, Jr. v. Nwo, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANLEY H. BRANDON, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NWO, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-15906
D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00334-SPK-
KSC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Samuel P. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Stanley H. Brandon, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for his former employer, NWO, Inc., in his action alleging NWO
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

GT/Research 08-15906 2
breached the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Brandon’s union
and NWO. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Bliesner v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to NWO because
Brandon’s action – a “hybrid” action against both NWO for breach of the CBA and
the union for breach of its duty of fair representation to Brandon – was untimely.
See id. (“An aggrieved party may bring a hybrid fair representation/§ 301 suit
against the union, the employer, or both. In order to prevail in any such suit, the
plaintiff must show that the union and the employer have both breached their
respective duties.”); Harris v. Alumax Mill Products, Inc., 897 F.2d 400, 404 (9th
Cir. 1990) (applying six-month statute of limitations to “hybrid” suits).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on the merits,
because Brandon failed to raise a triable issue as to whether his union breached its
duty of fair representation when it declined to take Brandon’s grievance to
arbitration. See Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1253 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We
have emphasized that, because a union balances many collective and individual
interests in deciding whether and to what extent it will pursue a particular

-- 2 of 3 --

GT/Research 08-15906 3
grievance, courts should accord substantial deference to a union’s decisions
regarding such matters.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We decline to consider issues raised by Brandon for the first time on appeal.
See MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2006).
Brandon’s remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --