VELAZQUEZ v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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). 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., 187 Or.App. 341, 68 P.3d 233, 242 (2003) (“Releases are a species of settlement agreement and, as such, are favored by the law.”); Patterson v. Am. Med. Sys. Inc., 141 Or.App. 50, 916 P.2d 881, 882 (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.