Sofjan Bahaudin v. JOHN M. McHUGH, Secretary, United States Department of the Army

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOFJAN BAHAUDIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN M. McHUGH, Secretary, United
States Department of the Army,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56650
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00510-JFW-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sofjan Bahaudin appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
employment action as barred by a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of a
FILED
JAN 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56650 2
settlement agreement, and for clear error any factual findings made in interpreting
the settlement agreement. City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1261
(9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bahaudin’s action as barred by the
terms of the settlement agreement resolving his prior employment action. See
Stroman v. W. Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 461-63 (9th Cir. 1989) (Title VII
claims barred by prior agreement where waiver was voluntary, deliberate, and
informed). Bahaudin failed to establish that the settlement agreement was
procured by fraud and was therefore invalid. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,
389 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding settlement agreement where plaintiff
failed to establish that the agreement was procured by fraud or any other basis that
would render it invalid).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend because amendment would be futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627
F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
Bahaudin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --