Keith Pierre Roy v. SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS, INC., a Delaware corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH PIERRE ROY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-55719
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02547-JFW-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Keith Pierre Roy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging state law employment claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's
judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Lyon v.
* 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
OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55719
Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Roy’s discrimination and harassment
claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”),
retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5(b), and claim for
wrongful termination in violation of public policy, because Roy failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (a plaintiff fails to show he is entitled to relief if the complaint’s factual
allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of [the
alleged] misconduct”); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 294 P.3d 49, 66 (Cal. 2013)
(the protected characteristic must be a substantial motivating factor for the
employment decision for a FEHA discrimination claim); Aguilar v. Avis Rent A
Car Sys., Inc., 980 P.2d 846, 851-52 (Cal. 1999) (setting forth requirements of
harassment claim under FEHA); Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022,
1032-33 (Cal. 1994) (setting forth requirements of claim for wrongful termination
in violation of public policy); Patten v. Grant Jt. Union High Sch. Dist., 37 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 113, 117 (Ct. App. 2005) (setting forth the elements and providing
framework for analyzing retaliation claims under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5).
The district court properly denied Roy’s motion to remand the action to state
court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55719
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (requirements for diversity
jurisdiction under § 1332); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366
F.3d 972, 974 n.2 (9th Cir 2004) (denial of a motion to remand a removed case is
reviewed de novo).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Roy’s postjudgment
motion for violating the local rules. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-4; Bias v. Moynihan, 508
F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for district court’s compliance
with its local rules).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --