Christopher Kuramoto v. Heart & Vascular Center of Arizona Pc

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER KURAMOTO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HEART & VASCULAR CENTER OF
ARIZONA PC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-17004
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00113-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2022**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER,***
District Judge.
Christopher Kuramoto (Kuramoto) appeals the district court’s grant of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
partial summary judgment and partial judgment after a bench trial in favor of Heart
& Vascular Center of Arizona (the “Center”). Before the district court, Kuramoto,
a former Center employee, raised claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) and the Arizona Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act. He asserted that
the Center unlawfully interfered with him taking leave under the FMLA and
retaliated against him in violation of state law for taking earned paid sick leave
following a car accident.1 On appeal, Kuramoto argues that the district court
erroneously concluded that he failed to return a health care provider certification
and that the Center had overcome the legal presumption of unlawful retaliation for
his use of earned paid sick leave. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
1. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kuramoto’s
FMLA interference claim, holding that FMLA regulations permitted the Center to
require he submit a health care provider certification on its chosen form and that
the Center was not required to provide Kuramoto with a notice of deficiency and
opportunity to cure. Under the FMLA, employers may request a health care
provider certification that supports an employee’s need for leave, and FMLA
regulations give employers the option of requiring that this certification be
1 Before the district court, Kuramoto also brought a claim under the Arizona
Employment Protection Act. Kuramoto does not appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on this claim, and we do not address this issue on appeal.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
submitted on a Department of Labor form or on another form that collects the same
information. 29 U.S.C. § 2613(a); 29 C.F.R. § 825.306(b). Although Kuramoto
submitted various medical records and doctor’s notes, he concedes that he never
returned the requested certification form, even after prompted to do so multiple
times by the Center. Because he never submitted a certification, the Center was
not required to provide him written notice of the certification’s deficiencies and
seven days to cure any deficiencies, as is required for incomplete and insufficient
certifications. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(c). Thus, his leave was not protected by the
FMLA. 29 C.F.R. § 825.313(b).
2. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the Center
presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the legal presumption of
unlawful retaliation under the Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act. Under the
Act, when an adverse action is taken against an employee within 90 days of the
employee using earned paid sick leave, such action is presumptively retaliatory.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-364(B). The employer can overcome this presumption with
“clear and convincing evidence that such action was taken for other permissible
reasons.” Id. Kuramoto does not dispute that between January 16 and February
19, 2019, he missed more than 200 hours of work that was not approved FMLA
leave or covered by other paid leave. The Center has consistently asserted that this
was the reason for his termination, and it has corroborated this explanation through

-- 3 of 4 --

4
contemporaneous documentary evidence, including emails and Kuramoto’s
timesheets and leave statements. This clear and convincing evidence is sufficient
to overcome the legal presumption of unlawful retaliation under the Fair Wages
and Healthy Families Act.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --