Cecilia Baldazo v. Elko County, ex rel., its Sheriff’s Department;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECILIA BALDAZO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELKO COUNTY, ex rel., its Sheriff’s
Department; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15840
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00532-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges and LAMBERTH,*** Senior
District Judge.
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Cecilia Baldazo appeals from the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Elko County, Marvin Morton, Rick Keema, and Brad Hester, on
Baldazo’s claims for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for common law
negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in considering the arbitration award and record,
which are admissible evidence for purposes of summary judgment. See Alexander
v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 59–60 (1974). Because the defendants’
motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment was timely under
Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Baldazo was on notice that the
merits of her claims were at issue. Even if Baldazo’s opposition to summary
judgment were construed as a motion under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Baldazo failed to show how “additional discovery would have
precluded summary judgment,” Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839,
844 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis omitted), and therefore the district court did not
abuse its discretion in proceeding to consider the merits of the defendants’ motion.
Finally, the defendants provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for
terminating Baldazo, namely that she was untruthful and insubordinate, and
introduced the arbitration award and record as supporting evidence. Baldazo failed
2

-- 2 of 3 --

to produce evidence that defendants’ reason was pretextual. See Aragon v.
Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 658–59 (9th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the
defendants.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --