Alan R. Forsha v. Solder Removal Company Roe Corporation

24 F.3d 246 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Alan R. FORSHA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOLDER REMOVAL COMPANY; Roe Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-56010. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 1994. Decided May 2, 1994. Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Plaintiff/Appellant Alan Forsha ("Forsha") appeals from the orders of the district court deeming certain matters to be without substantial controversy and denying him leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 3 In January 1989, Solder Removal Company's ("Solder") primary stockholder and Chief Executive Officer, Jesse Hood ("Hood"), entered into an oral employment agreement with Forsha. On condition that Forsha immediately leave his current employment and begin work for Solder as Vice President in charge of manufacturing operations, Hood orally promised to…