Peter-Palican v. CNMI

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Rights § 1983
  • Date Filed: 09-17-2014
  • Case #: 13-17099
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Per Curiam: Circuit Judges Goodwin, Trott, and Murguia
  • Full Text Opinion

A triable dispute must be present to survive summary judgment for retaliation, breach of contract, and estoppel claims.

Emerenciana Peter-Palican appealed “the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Governor Eloy S. Inos.” Peter-Palican had initially brought an action “arising from her termination from her position as Special Assistant to the Governor for Women’s Affairs.” On appeal of that action, the Ninth Circuit had remanded “for the district court to address Peter-Palican’s retaliation, breach of contract, and estoppel claims.” The district court’s summary judgment decision was the result of that remand. Peter-Palican then appealed based on summary judgment on those claims. The Ninth Circuit reviewed each claim, and determined that “the district court properly granted summary judgment.” The panel found that Peter-Palican had “failed to raise a triable dispute” for the retaliation claim and estoppel claim. The panel also found that summary judgment was proper for Peter-Palican’s breach of contract claim because she undisputedly held her position by “appointment rather than by contract.” The panel therefore affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search

Back to Top