Cheryl Bishop v. Merrick Garland

facts predating the 2019 settlement. The district court concluded that, although these

facts could serve as background, relying on these pre-settlement facts to state a claim

would violate the parties’ settlement agreement and would “allow Bishop to simply

relitigate claims she has already settled.” The court also denied Bishop’s motion to

strike ATF’s argument that the court disregard pre-settlement facts.

Bishop argues that ATF failed to raise the exclusion of this evidence in its

motion for summary judgment and thus forfeited the issue. But ATF sufficiently

raised the point in its motion, quoting the settlement agreement and analyzing only

post-settlement conduct.

Bishop also argues that Dosier v. Miami Valley Broadcasting Corp. allows

the pre-settlement conduct to be considered as evidence of “the existence of a pattern

or scheme.” 656 F.2d 1295, 1300–01 (9th Cir. 1981). But her settlement agreement

clearly forecloses the success of any claim “growing out of [Bishop’s] employment

2 to date” with ATF or “arising out of” the litigation that resulted in settlement. And

our decision in Dosier, which considered how res judicata affected the use of pre-

settlement…