Varee Earnest English v. Santa Anita Race Track, a business form unknown;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VAREE EARNEST ENGLISH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK, a
business form unknown; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55948
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-07994-GPS-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Varee English brought suit alleging that his former employer,
Santa Anita Race Track, wrongfully terminated his employment based on race and
in retaliation for a prior suit that he brought against another southern California
racetrack operator. English also sued two of his former co-workers, Ronald
FILED
DEC 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Taggart and Mark Mattick (“individual defendants”), alleging harassment and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, he sued the Federation of
California Racing Associations, Inc. (“Federation”), of which Santa Anita is a
member, based on an “integrated enterprise” theory. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
While English’s appeal was pending before this court, Santa Anita’s parent
company petitioned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This appeal was stayed pending the
outcome of those proceedings. We took judicial notice of records from the
bankruptcy proceeding. Those records demonstrate that English’s attorney
received notice of the bankruptcy action, the deadline for filing a proof of claim in
the bankruptcy proceeding, and a proof of claim form. English never filed a proof
of claim. In April 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming a
corporate reorganization plan and discharging all claims against Santa Anita. See
11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1). Because English’s claims against Santa Anita were among
those discharged in bankruptcy, we dismiss English’s appeal with respect to Santa
Anita.
Any relief that English may be able to obtain from the bankruptcy court’s
order would have to be granted by the Delaware bankruptcy court. See, e.g., Fed.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1). We express no opinion as to the merits of any claims
English might raise in the Delaware bankruptcy court.
English’s claims against the remaining defendants are waived on appeal
because he failed to support them with argument, citations to authority, or citations
to the record in his opening brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). We will not
address claims that are not “specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s
opening brief,” including claims that are “only argue[d] in passing” or are “bare
assertion[s] . . . with no supporting argument.” Christian Legal Soc’y v. Wu, 626
F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted) (alterations in original). English’s
emotional distress and harassment claims against the individual defendants and the
Federation were included in the “Statement of the Case” section of his opening
brief, but were not mentioned or supported by authority anywhere else in the brief.
English also asserts that the Federation is an “integrated enterprise.” But his bare
assertion without supporting argument does not properly raise the issue on appeal.
We therefore dismiss English’s claims against Taggart, Mattick and the Federation.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --