From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter v. Honeywell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 14, 2007
247 F. App'x 872 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-56876.

Submitted August 10, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 14, 2007.

James F. Lefebvre, Esq., Loma Linda, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.

Edward G. Gregory, Esq., Mariana Aguilar, Esq, Steptoe Johnson, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, George H. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-02994-GHK.

Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM, Senior Judge.

The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum. Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Appellant Anson Carter (Carter) challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Honeywell, Inc. (Honeywell) on Carter's wrongful termination claim and on Honeywell's unjust enrichment counterclaim.

Carter's argument that he was terminated in violation of public policy is unavailing because Carter failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Honeywell actually terminated his employment because of his refusal to allow wage deductions. See Tyco Indus., Inc. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal.App.3d 148, 158, 211 Cal.Rptr. 540 (1985) (holding "[t]he conduct of [an] employer . . . wrongful [when] the motive far discharge was contrary to `some substantial public policy' . . .") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Because Honeywell provided Carter with a repayment option that did not require wage deductions, no genuine issue of fact existed on this issue.

Finally, Carter was unjustly enriched because he failed to repay the approximately $53,300 advanced on his behalf. See Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 14 Cal.4th 39, 43-44, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 687, 924 P.2d 996 (1996) (concluding that failure to pay a debt may result in unjust enrichment).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Carter v. Honeywell

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 14, 2007
247 F. App'x 872 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Carter v. Honeywell

Case Details

Full title:Anson CARTER, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. HONEYWELL, INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 14, 2007

Citations

247 F. App'x 872 (9th Cir. 2007)