Michael D’andrea v. State of Hawaii;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL D’ANDREA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF HAWAII; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15774
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00105-JMS-
BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 11, 2011**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Michael D’Andrea appeals the district court’s summary
judgment dismissal of his claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments,
Title VII and Hawaii Revised Statutes § 378-2, the Hawaii Whistleblowers’
FILED
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Protection Act, and Hawaii tort law. As the facts and procedural history are
familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain
our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the August 7, 2007 settlement
agreement bars all of D’Andrea’s claims. “As a general rule, a properly executed
settlement precludes future litigation for its parties.” Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 172 P.3d 1021, 1032 (Haw. 2007) (citation
omitted). D’Andrea agreed to release the University of Hawaii (University) and its
past and present employees and officials from all claims “whether known or
unknown, pled or unpled, suspected or unsuspected, concealed or unconcealed . . .
arising out of or relating in any way to the Litigation and the [April 11, 2007]
Complaint, including but not limited to the claims that were asserted and could
have been asserted in the Complaint.” As of April 11, 2007, the University had
initiated formal disciplinary proceedings that led to his suspension and termination.
Accordingly, D’Andrea could have brought all his claims in his first complaint.
Moreover, all of D’Andrea’s claims arise out of or relate to claims in his 2007
lawsuit.
D’Andrea contends that the agreement does not bar his claims because his
release was not “voluntary, deliberate and informed.” Salmeron v. United States,
724 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1983). This argument fails because D’Andrea has

-- 2 of 3 --

not presented any evidence to support his conclusion. Moreover, D’Andrea, a
tenured professor with a doctorate, could reasonably be expected to understand a
settlement agreement, especially in light of his representation by three attorneys
during the settlement negotiations.
The University also argues that summary judgment was appropriate because
D’Andrea has not presented sufficient evidence to support his claims. Because the
settlement agreement is dispositive of all claims, we need not address this
argument.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --