Wednesday, December 09, 2009

McFarland v. Guardsmark (9th Cir. - Dec. 9, 2009)

Rarely can I quote an entire published opinion verbatim. But I can here. It reads:

"Johnny McFarland (“McFarland”) appeals from the district court’s decision denying his motion for partial summary judgment and granting partial summary judgment to Guardsmark, LLC in this dispute arising under Cal. Labor Code § 512. McFarland v. Guardsmark, LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The district court dismissed the remaining claims upon stipulation of the parties. We affirm for the reasons set out in the district court’s thorough decision.

McFarland raises for the first time on appeal the factual issue of whether his signed employment agreement represents an actual agreement to take two on-duty meal periods in a single day. As McFarland did not raise this issue before the district court, see id., we do not consider it here. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)."

Seems pretty easy. Don't you wish all cases could be so simply resolved.

Just one question. There was no oral argument. Which means the case was fully briefed around a year ago, and formally submitted on November 6th. How come two paragraphs took so long?

Not complaining, of course. I'm just surprised we can't crank out something like this even faster.