NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS A. GONDA, Jr., M.D.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., in its capacity as Plan Administrator; PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN FOR PHYSICIANS,
Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 16484
D.C. No. 3 :11

- cv - 01363

- SC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 16, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, * * District Judge.
Thom as A. Gonda, Jr., M.D., appeals the district court’s order granting

* This disposi tion is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United Sta tes District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

summary judgment to Defendants

- Appellees The Permanente Medical Group , Inc. (“TPMG”) and The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan for Physicians (“TPMG Plan”). Gonda b rought this action in March 2011 after his long

- term disability (“LTD”) benefits were terminated, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. , and seeking LTD benefits from the TPMG Plan

. Before Gonda brought this ERISA action , however, he filed wrongful termination lawsuits against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) and TPMG in
December 2010 , both of which were consolidated in arbitration

. Gonda, Kais er, and TPMG then settled those arbitrations in November 2011 and , u nder the
settlement agreement , Gonda signed a broad release of claims and expressly waived his right to bring any and all claims and causes of action arising under ERISA against TPMG and its related pe rsons and entities. Based on this waiver , the district court found that Gonda’s current action against TPMG and the TPMG
Plan was barred . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm. The district court correctly concluded that the settlement agreement clearly and expressly waived any and all ERISA claims against TPMG and related parties. The court also correctly held that the joint stipulation s to stay the case in the
district court d id not supersede or alter the settlement agreement. Gonda, TPMG,3

and the TPMG Plan agreed early on in the district court that Gonda would be
allowed to pursue his internal administrative appeal s with the Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”), w hich provided LTD insurance coverage
for the TPMG Plan and was responsible for administering the claims review
process
. The subsequent joint stipulation s requesting the district court to stay Gonda’s ERISA action pending the outcome of t hose administrative appeals were simply continuation s of that earlier agreement. They did not render the November
2011 settlement agreement ambiguous or alter t he contract to preclude Defendants

Appellees from enforcing their right s
. U.S. Cellular Inv. Co. v

. GTE Mobilnet,
Inc. , 281 F.3d 929, 937

– 39 (9th Cir. 2002)

. O nce the district court lifted the stay , TPMG and the TPMG Plan permissibly raised the settlement agreement as an affirmative defense in their First
A mended Answer to the Complaint, and also properly asserted the release and waiver of any ERISA claims in the ir Motion for Summary Judgment. D espite their willingness to allow Gonda to complete the administrative process , which could have granted him benefits , there is no indication that TPMG or the TPMG Plan
surrender ed their rights to enforce the settlement agreement. Rather, t he explicit language of the agreement controls, and Gonda released TPMG and its agents and related companies and facilities

— including the TPMG Plan

— “of and from any
and all claims, charges, demands, actions, obligations, liabilities, and causes of4

action . . . which Dr. Gonda now owns or holds or has at any time owned or held arising under . . . the Employee Re tirement Income Security Act.” Gonda’s estoppel claim fails f or similar reasons . Gonda, TPMG, and the
TPMG Plan jointly requested the district court to stay the action pending the administrative appeals. By doing so, Defendants

- Appellees did not admit Gonda
had a viable ERISA claim or abandon their rights to raise the settlement agreement as a defense should the parties return to litigate in the district court; rather, they simply allowed Gonda to exhaust the administrative process

. Gonda was not induced to pursue the administrative appeals based on any such representation , nor did he change his position “ in reliance on [Defendants

- Appellees’] position. Thus, estoppel principles do not apply .” Simmons v. Ghaderi , 187 P.3d 934, 943 (Cal. 2008). Finally, the record clearly shows that Gonda knowingly and volun tarily signed the settlement agreement and that it was supported by consideration

. Morais v. Cent. Beverage Corp. Union Emps. ’ Supplemental Ret. Plan , 167 F.3d 709, 713 , 713 n.6 (1st Cir. 1999) ; see also Was hington v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle
NFL Ret. Plan , 504 F.3d 818, 824

– 25 (9th Cir. 2007). Gonda is highly educated, was given 21 days to review the settlement agreement, and was ably represented by legal counsel

. See Morais , 167 F.3d at 713 n.6. Gonda has also failed to produce any evidence that Defendants

- Appellees en gaged in improper conduct or5

otherwise failed to communicate to him the material facts of the settlement

. See Washington , 504 F.3d at 823

– 24. The settlement agreement was therefore
enforceable in barring Gonda’s ERISA action, and t he district court properly relied
on his release in g ranting summary judgment to Defendants

- Appellees. Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED.