FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MITSUE TAKAHASHI, No. 10-15547
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01668-OWW-
SMS
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, MEMORANDUM *
Merced Office,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Mitsue Takahashi appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
her employment action on statute of limitations and res judicata grounds. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manufactured Home
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Takahashi’s claims under Title VII and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as time-barred. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (at most 300-day time limit for filing an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge under Title VII); 29
U.S.C. § 626(d) (same for ADEA); Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1176
(9th Cir. 2000) (“[F]ailure to file an EEOC charge within the prescribed 300-day
period . . . is treated as a violation of a statute of limitations[.]”), overruled on
other grounds by Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1194-96 (9th Cir. 2001)
(en banc). Moreover, the district court properly determined that Takahashi’s Title
VII and ADEA claims were also barred by res judicata. See Kay v. City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803, 808 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating requirements for res
judicata under California law).
Takahashi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15547