Hugh Hardage v. Cbs Broadcasting Inc.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Faramarz Naeim v. Robert L. Wilkie (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2022)
- Bishop v. Barr (District Court, W.D. Washington 2022)
- Wolf v. Discover Financial Services Incorporated (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2021)
- Harrington v. George Fox University (District Court, D. Oregon 2021)
- Kathleen Mulligan v. Victoria A. Lipnic (9th Cir. 2018)
- Joanne Ogden v. Public Utility Dist. No. 2 (9th Cir. 2018)
- Grosz v. Boeing Co. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
433 F.3d 672
Hugh HARDAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CBS BROADCASTING INC., a New York Corporation; Viacom Television Stations Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Viacom Broadcasting of Seattle Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Kathy Sparks, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-35906.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2005.
Filed November 1, 2005.
Amended January 6, 2006.
Claudia Kilbreath, Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Harry J.F. Korrell and Kathryn S. Loppnow, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Western District of Washington; John C. Coughenour, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-01303-JCC.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The panel opinion filed November 1, 2005, is amended as follows:
Add to end of footnote 1 (p. 14898):
The dissent also analyzes the potential legal effect of EEOC enforcement guidance. This guidance was never cited by Hardage in any of his briefs. "Our circuit has repeatedly admonished that we cannot `manufacture arguments for an appellant' and therefore we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant's opening brief." Indep. Towers v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003), quoting Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994). For that reason, we will not manufacture an argument on Hardage's behalf and then rule on it in his favor. This argument was waived. See Greenwood, 28 F.3d at 977.
The petition for panel rehearing is denied. Judge Paez would grant the petition. The petition for rehearing en banc is pending before this court. No further petitions may be filed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.