NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIS C. McALLISTER, No. 13-15631
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00056-ACK-KSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HAWAIIANA MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LTD.; AOAO ROYAL
CAPITOL PLAZA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Willis C. McAllister appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his motions for relief from the judgment following a jury trial. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a renewed
*
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).
motion for judgment as a matter of law, Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v.
A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015), and for an abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham
& Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McAllister’s
requests for relief from the judgment because McAllister’s contentions regarding
vicarious liability and retaliation did not establish any basis for reconsideration or
that he was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Univ. of Texas
Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct 2517, 2528 (2013) (discussing causation as a
necessary element of any Title VII retaliation claim); Vance v. Ball State Univ.,
133 S. Ct. 2434, 2441-42 (2013) (discussing vicarious liability of employers in the
Title VII context).
Because McAllister fails to argue how the district court erred in rejecting his
contentions regarding joint employers and the continuing violation doctrine, these
issues are waived. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993)
(issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief deemed
abandoned).
We do not consider McAllister’s remaining contentions because McAllister
failed to produce transcripts on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Portland
Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787, 789-90
2 13-15631
(9th Cir. 1989) (declining to consider plaintiffs’ argument where they failed to
provide transcripts).
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.
McAllister’s motion to disqualify counsel (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15631