Narrative Opinion Summary
Linda Reszetylo appeals pro se the judgment from a jury trial in favor of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter regarding her employment discrimination retaliation claim. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews for abuse of discretion in jury instruction formulation. The appeal is affirmed. Reszetylo argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that it had already determined no discrimination occurred based on her sex. This argument fails because her counsel did not object to or contested the jury instruction language during the trial, having stipulated to it. The appeal does not address new issues raised in Reszetylo’s reply brief. The ruling is affirmed, and the disposition is not for publication or citation in this circuit per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercises jurisdiction over the appeal based on the statutory provision governing final decisions of district courts.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews for abuse of discretion in jury instruction formulation.
Non-Publication and Citation of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's ruling is not for publication or citation in this circuit, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed, and the disposition is not for publication or citation in this circuit per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Standard of Review for Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's formulation of jury instructions for abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews for abuse of discretion in jury instruction formulation.
Waiver of Objection to Jury Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's failure to object to the jury instruction during the trial, after stipulation, results in waiver of that objection on appeal.
Reasoning: This argument fails because her counsel did not object to or contested the jury instruction language during the trial, having stipulated to it.