Angelina Velazquez v. Courtyard Management Corp.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2019
• Docket: 18-35330
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA VELAZQUEZ, Nos. 18-35330 18-35718 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01438-SB v.

COURTYARD MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM* CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019**

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Angelina Velazquez appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging federal and

state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 7 F.3d 180, 182 (9th Cir. 1993).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Velazquez’s

action is barred by the settlement agreement between Velazquez and defendant’s

parent company, Marriott International, Inc. See Pioneer Resources, LLC v. D.R.

Johnson Lumber Co., 68 P.3d 233, 242 (Or. App. 2003) (“Releases are a species of

settlement agreement and, as such, are favored by the law.”); Patterson v. Am.

Med. Sys. Inc., 916 P.2d 881, 882 (Or. App. 1996) (if a release’s terms

“unambiguously express the intent of the parties, [the release] must be enforced

accordingly”); see also Botefur v. City of Eagle Point, 7 F.3d 152, 156 (9th Cir.

1993) (interpretation of a settlement agreement is governed by principles of state

contract law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and

costs to defendant because the settlement agreement expressly provided for such an

award. See Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng’g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223, 1235

(9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record Velazquez’s contentions that the

district court did not consider her evidence and that the district court ordered

mediation which never occurred.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35330