Summary
finding that California employer did not direct its activities toward Oregon based, in part, on the fact that Oregon plaintiff had initiated contact with employer by sending her resume to the employer in California and going there for an interview
Summary of this case from Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Mark and Nicholas Thomas appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of Pepsico, Inc., on Pepsico's claim for breach of guaranty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the summary judgment de novo, see Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996), and the certification of the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) for an abuse of discretion, see Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 610 n. 4 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's order entered on May 24, 1995.
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court's post-judgment orders because appellants failed to file a separate notice of appeal. Cf. Culinary & Serv. Employees Union, AFL-CIO Local 555 v. Hawaii Employee Benefit Admin., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir.1982).
AFFIRMED.