Anthony R. Granillo v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTHONY R. GRANILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17276
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00398-JMR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Anthony R. Granillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing as untimely his “hybrid” action under section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by
FILED
JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-17276 2
his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., 764 F.2d 663, 665-66 (9th
Cir. 1985), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as untimely because Granillo
filed it more than six months after his claims accrued. See id. at 669 (explaining
that section 301 “hybrid” actions have a six-month statute of limitations and
affirming dismissal of a section 301 “hybrid” action filed seven months after the
claim accrued). The action was untimely even if, as Granillo contends, the claim
accrued on November 14, 2007.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --