David Ollodart v. Intel Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID OLLODART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-35859
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00125-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
David Ollodart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging various employment-related 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). Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35859
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ollodart’s action because Ollodart
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’
or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Doe v.
Denny’s, Inc., 963 P.2d 650, 654 (Or. 1998) (elements of a constructive discharge
claim); Reed v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 459 P.3d 253, 257 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)
(elements of an invasion of privacy claim); Herrera v. C & M Victor Co., 337 P.3d
154, 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of a defamation claim); Scott v. Jackson
County, 260 P.3d 744, 752 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of a trespass to chattels
claim); Merten v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 228 P.3d 623, 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2010)
(elements of a fraud claim); Slover v. Or. State Bd. of Clinical Soc. Workers, 927
P.2d 1098, 1101-02 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) (elements of breach of contract claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --