*1 Plaintiffs contend its discretion when it denied abused motions reactivate their actions their 41(b) mo- granting

after Defendant’s Rule dismiss. Once the prose- the actions for failure however,

cute, the motions to reactivate

became moot and was no there need set date, pretrial discovery cutoff or new

dates, or trial dates.

AFFIRMED. R.

Sharon R. HAMMER and James

Donoval, wife, husband and

Plaintiffs-Appellants, VALLEY; OF

CITY SUN

Defendants-Appellees.

Argued July and Submitted Portland, Oregon Johnson,

Wyatt Angstman John- Benton ID, son, Boise, Plaintiffs-Appellants Naylor, G. Attorney, Jacob H. Kirtlan D. Naylor, Attorney, Tyler General P.C., Williams, Hales, Attorney, Naylor & Boise, ID, Defendants-Appellees *2 of the OWENS, ous, interpretation rendering the and Before: WATFORD law, court NAVARRO,* the district a matter Chief contract Judges, and denying in not its discretion Judge. did abuse District 12(c) mo- motion to convert the ** MEMORANDUM motion. summary judgment tion to properly court 1. The district of Ham- dismissal 3. reverse the We (“Ham majority Sharon the claim, the dis- unconstitutional bias mer’s mer”) in a Rule of Civil claims Federal Ribi and claims Nils missal the 12(c) Order because Procedure capac- in DeWayne Briscoe release these a contractual executed claim. ity, of Donoval’s the dismissal and pay for a exchange in claims severance grounds the for the clarify We reverse a con holds that when ment. Idaho law are because we court’s dismissal district meaning of the “the unambiguous, tract is reasoning as to unable determine the parties must be intent of the contract and why these claims were dismissed. meaning of plain from the the determined the and remand dismissal 4. We reverse City Idaho Falls contract’s own words.” interest, stigma plus liberty of Hammer’s Co., 126 Indem. Idaho Home v. differing tests This Circuit has two claim. (1995). that conclude the P.2d We plus claim: liberty for a release that Hammer supplemental Gebbie, Brady in the first identified Donoval attorney-husband James. her 1988) (the “Gebbie (“Donoval”) provided to the drafted and test”), Campanelli the second (the “City”) was unam City Valley of Sun Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476 all “any and biguous and waived therefore test”). (the The Gebbie test “Campanelli arising from a termi damages claims test, as Campanelli exacting than the less orig as stated in her nation without cause” plead plaintiff the Campanelli requires agreement. employment inal at issue the statements prove not abuse The court did 2. substantially false. were by failing to allow its discretion court the Gebbie The district conflated 12(c) summary motion to a to convert the tests, granting summary Campanelli 12(c) motion, Ap- In judgment motion. the on More- unclear doctrine. pleadings on pellees the over, ultimately court deter- the district claims arising waiving her from Hammer at were that the statements issue mined supplemental release. In pursuant to the false, although falsity of substantially the Idaho, unambig if contract’s are the terms re- promulgated about Hammer what was uous, con the of the then determination fact. As genuine issue of mained a material legal ques meaning and tract’s effect such, improperly the district because in a appropriately reviewable law summary judgment granted State, Wylie v. Idaho motion. See interest, stigma plus we re- liberty Bd., 151 253 P.3d Transp. Idaho verse remand. (2011). not court did that the terms The district conclude Because we Hammer to failing to allow unambigu- its discretion supplemental release were ** Navarro, publi disposition appropriate for This is not Chief Unit- The Gloria M. Honorable except provid precedent as Judge and is District of cation not ed States District Nevada, by Rule sitting by designation. 36-3. Ninth Circuit complaint. part, amend her “Denial leave AFFIRMED in REVERSED in part, amend is not an abuse of discretion where and REMANDED. con- could parties shall bear their own costs. that further clude amendment would be Sylvia City Tr. v. Los futile.” *3 Landfield WATFORD, Judge, concurring 1189, (9th

Angeles, 729 F.3d Cir. in part dissenting part: 2013) Allwaste, Hecht, (citing Inc. v. I think the court correctly dis- 1995)). F.3d The dis- claims, plaintiffs’ all of missed I and would trict court in this case conclud- therefore affirm the in its entire- further be amendment would futile ty. claims, of her waiver and we therefore affirm.

6. We reverse the district court’s costs Dpnoval. against

entered Hammer A awarding

district court’s of costs does not

constitute an it discretion unless

is on an “based inaccurate the law view clearly finding

or a erroneous fact.” See Gates,

Corder 1991). Because reversing we are and re- EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Ronnie claims, manding some we vacate the entry costs Donoval. MONDORA, Dr.; Defendants- Appellees. conclude,

To affirm the we motion; grant of court’s the deni- convert; al Hammer’s motion to and the

denial of motion to amend. We

reverse the district court’s claim; Hammer’s unconstitutional bias lib- * August Submitted claim; erty stigma plus the claims against Ribi and Briscoe claim; capacities; entry Donoval’s

of costs. augment the record liberty interest,

in regards to her reversing claim. Because

plus we

remanding this Hammer’s Motion to (Docket 49)

Augment Entry the Record is Additionally, Appellees’

DENIED. Mo-

tion to Strike footnote 3 of Hammer’s (Docket reply Entry

amended brief

GRANTED. 34(a)(2). panel unanimously App. this See concludes case Fed. R. P. argument. suitable for decision oral without