Angelina Sampson, an individual v. Jeld-Wen Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business in Washington State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELINA SAMPSON, an individual,
Plaintiff for herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; BRODIE KNOX,
an individual, Plaintiff for himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated;
MATTHEW JOHNSON, an individual,
Plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; RICHARD
LANDRETH, an individual, Plaintiff for
himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JELD-WEN INC., an Oregon corporation
doing business in Washington State,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35015
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03025-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2018
Seattle, Washington
FILED
MAR 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Angelina Sampson, Brodie Knox, Matthew Johnson, and Richard
Landreth appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Jeld-
Wen Inc. (Jeld-Wen) in their diversity action. We review de novo a grant of
summary judgment, and we “determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material
fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that Jeld-Wen was contractually bound to pay annual
bonuses for work performed in 2008. We disagree. The January 31, 2006, memo
concerning the manager bonus program was distributed contemporaneously with
the employment agreements. The memo is most reasonably interpreted as an
appendage to the employment agreements because the memo lacks sufficient detail
to serve as a standalone agreement. See Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp.,
94 P.3d 945, 949 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (holding that the terms of a contract must
be “sufficiently definite”). Read together, the two documents reflect that the Jeld-
Wen Board of Directors retained discretion as to whether to award bonuses.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Consequently, Plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding Jeld-
Wen’s obligation to pay bonuses for work performed in 2008, and the district court
properly entered summary judgment in favor of Jeld-Wen. See Oracle, 879 F.3d at
958.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --