KYOUNG KO v. BRENNAN (2018)

MEMORANDUM ***

Kyoung H. Ko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her employment action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ko’s action as barred by the settlement agreement because Ko failed to allege facts sufficient to find that the settlement agreement was not enforceable. See Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth the factors involved in determining whether an agreement constitutes a waiver of rights); see also Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. State of California, 618 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (no discernable difference between California and federal contract law).

The district court’s consideration of the settlement agreement in the context of a motion to dismiss was proper because the document was incorporated by reference into the first amended complaint. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court may consider document incorporated by reference in the complaint “if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document”).

AFFIRMED.