22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b2,facts concerning the existence or terms of a settlement agreement are not in dispute where they were clearly outlined and agreed to in open court). We do not consider Cooper’s contentions concerning the district court’s order partially granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the settlement agreement disposes of all of Cooper’s claims against defendants in this action. See Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2013) (order granting partial summary judgment was not appealable as part of final judgment entered after remaining claims settled). 2 19-17572 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Cooper’s contention that the district court improperly relied on federal case law, and as meritless Cooper’s contention that the magistrate judge improperly denied his request to appear telephonically for the settlement conference. Cooper’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 19-1757224:T509,

facts concerning the existence or terms of a settlement agreement are not in dispute

where they were clearly outlined and agreed to in open court).

We do not consider Cooper’s contentions concerning the district court’s

order partially granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the

settlement agreement disposes of all of Cooper’s claims against defendants in this

action. See Jones v. McDaniel, 717 F.3d 1062, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2013) (order

granting partial summary judgment was not appealable as part of final judgment

entered after remaining claims settled).

2 19-17572 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cooper’s contention that the district

court improperly relied on federal case law, and as meritless Cooper’s contention

that the magistrate judge improperly denied his request to appear telephonically for

the settlement conference.

Cooper’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 19-17572