Syed Nazim Ali v. Paypal, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYED NAZIM ALI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PAYPAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16479

D.C. No. 5:19-cv-00093-SVK

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
**

Submitted May 4, 2020
***

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of

*
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).
FILED

MAY 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16479
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ali’s claims for disability
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), failure to
accommodate and retaliation under the California Fair Employment Housing Act
(“FEHA”), wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
because Ali failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. As
recognized by the district court, the email chain Ali attached to his operative
complaint reveals that PayPal reasonably accommodated to his requests by
providing him with a “desk for the duration of this contract”. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he is entitled to relief if
the complaint’s factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of [the alleged] misconduct”); Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., Inc.,
878 F.3d 794, 798-99 (9th Cir. 2017) (elements of an ADA disability
discrimination claim); Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406,
428 (Ct. App. 2008) (elements of a FEHA retaliation claim); Jensen v. Wells Fargo
Bank, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55, 63 (Ct. App. 2000) (elements of a FEHA failure-to-
accommodate claim); Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 487, 495 (Ct.
App. 1999) (“The employer is not obligated to choose the best accommodation or
the accommodation the employee seeks.”); Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 53 Cal.

3 19-16479
Rptr. 2d 741, 756 (Ct. App. 1996) (“A simple pleading of personnel management
activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional
distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.”).
Ali’s assertion of retaliation amount to no more than rank speculation not
supported by any material facts.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.