Fruktow v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co.

81 F.3d 168 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Nicholas N. FRUKTOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER COMPANY; Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts; Kent Brockelman, individually and as husband; Doe Brockelman, individually and as wife, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-15921. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 26, 1996. * Decided March 29, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Nicholas N. Fruktow appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Fruktow's diversity action seeking to rescind a settlement agreement into which he entered with his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and we affirm. 3 Fruktow contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment…