Brigitte Parker v. Amr Corporation , 644 F. App'x 739 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 04 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BRIGITTE PARKER, No. 14-15150
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00387-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AMR CORPORATION, DBA American
Airlines, Inc. and ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS,
Defendant-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN, District Judge.***
Brigitte Parker appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of
*
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).
*** The Honorable Stanley A. Bastian, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Defendant Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”). The Court
reviews decisions of summary judgment de novo. Farr v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc.,
151 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1998). We determine whether any genuine issues of
material fact exist, and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.
2011).
Parker argues that her declaration regarding the claim surrounding the
Mandarin-speaking flight attendants created a material question of fact. This is not
the case; a “conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any
supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” FTC
v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997). Parker’s
declaration was conclusory, and lacked detail sufficient to form a response to
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Furthermore, because
Parker failed to allege a specific, concrete harm as a result of Defendant AMR
Corporation’s alleged preferences for the Mandarin-speaking flight attendants, the
claim would fail anyway due to a lack of standing. See Wash. Legal Found. v.
Legal Found. of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 847 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351
(1992)).
Parker’s claim based on alleged improper integration into the Seniority
Integration Agreement is untimely, O’Donnell v. Vencor, Inc., 465 F.3d 1063,
1066 (9th Cir. 2006), and claim-precluded, Akootchook v. United States, 271 F.3d
1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2001).
Parker raises new issues for the first time on appeal, in both her opening
brief and her reply brief. Because the exceptional circumstances allowing
consideration of issues raised for the first time on appeal do not appear in this case,
the Court does not address them. El Paso City of Tex. v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. (In re
Am. W. Airlines, Inc.), 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). For similar reasons,
the Court will not consider Parker’s new evidentiary exhibit, filed with her opening
brief. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988)
(holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the
record on appeal). The district court did not err in concluding there were no issues
of material fact, and properly granted summary judgment as a matter of law on all
claims.
AFFIRMED.