Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANET ROSE ROTH, No. 05-15029
D.C. No. CV-03-00839-SRB
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGMENT
DRIVETIME CORPORATION, aka
Drivetime Car Sales, Inc., aka Drivetime
Automotvie Group, Inc.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees. C
I Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
, (Phoenix).
A This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
i submitted. _
C On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered Monday, December l2, 2005
‘ A Tf?£,Jg
car ~*$®¤»»
. JI" ,4~·$-i gu, -
¤y.·,.Q __ ` NJ T
t_____ _ - .
Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB Document 193 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 1 of 4

. ir ii J ‘ l i 2’
A NOT FOR PUBLICATION .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS L E D
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEC 12 2005
` °"“'i% %§ti§¥F§?§9p'%»EtE“"
JANET ROSE ROTH, No. 05-15029 ` `
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. N0. CV-03-00839-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DRIVETIME CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court A
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2005 "`
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Janet Rose Roth appeals pro se the district court’s order granting summary o
judgment to defendant DriveTime Corporation in her action alleging violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
M The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:03-cv-00839-SBB Document 193 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 2 of 4

Employment Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de
novo review, Arakaki v. Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002), We affirm.
The district court correctly concluded that the severance agreement
executed by Roth contained the protections statutorily required by the Older
Workers Benefit Protection Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). The evidence before the
district court did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Roth
knowingly and voluntarily signed the waiver of claims, and she is therefore l
precluded from bringing suit. See Stroman v. West Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d
458, 462-63 (9th Cir. 1989) (listing lack of ambiguity of agreement, education and
business experience of plaintiff, presence of noncoercive atmosphere for the
execution of the release, and availability of legal counsel as factors for `
determining "vo1untai·y, deliberate, and informed" waiver of claims in Title VII
cases); see also FTC v. Publ Qg Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.
1997) (holding that conclusory, self-serving statements lacking detailed facts and
supporting evidence are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact).
Roth’s remaining contentions lack merit.
2
Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB Document 193 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 3 of 4

We deny Appe1lees’ request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
39, without prejudice to the filing of such a motion in accordance with Ninth
Circuit Rule 39-1.
AFFIRMED.
\ 3 i
t
Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB Document 193 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB

Document 193

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB

Document 193

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB

Document 193

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-00839-SRB

Document 193

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 4 of 4