Tri Minh Huynh v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRI MINH HUYNH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15211
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01631-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 7, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
MAY 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Tri Minh Huynh appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in his whistleblower retaliation action against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
and other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm the district court’s judgment.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart
on Huynh’s claims of retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, retaliation under
the California Whistleblower Protection Act, and wrongful termination under
California law. Wal-Mart amply met its burden of producing evidence that there
was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Huynh’s termination, or that it would
have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity. See
id. at 996; Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1109
(2007). Further, Huynh made no showing of pretext. See Tides v. The Boeing
Co., 644 F.3d 809, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2011).
Huynh’s motion for reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioner’s denial
of his motion for summary reversal (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --