eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-06

Angelina Velazquez v. Courtyard Management Corp. ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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