FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 13 5 Non -Arg um en t Pane l

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 76 -CAP ARIESO, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Co un te rDefen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARYAM R HAMANI, Defen da nt -Co un te rCl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t, SHIRIN DEHGHAN, Co un te r-Defe nd an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 24 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andHILL, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Arie so , Inc . andSh iri n Deh gh an(“ Arie so ” co ll ect iv el y ) br ou gh t thi s ac ti on to reco ve r pa ym en ts m ad e to de fen da nt , Maryam Rah m an i, wh ic h s he was ob li ga te d t o re tu rnin th e ev en t s he term in at edhe r em pl oym en t wi th Arie so du rin g th e in it ia l two- y ear p eri od , whi ch sh e d id . Rahmani c ou nt ercl ai m edforfrau d, cl ai m in g t ha t s he was fr au du le nt ly induc edto acce ptem pl oym en t wi th Arie so an d th atArie so ’s m is rep res en ta ti on s co ns ti tu te d c on st ru ct iv e d is ch arg e su ch th atsh e is no t o bl ig at edto rep ay

th e p aym en ts m ad e to he r. The p art ie s fi le d c ro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di stric t co urt g ran te d ju dg m en t t o Ari es o o n R ah m an i’s co un te rcl ai m s, an d d is m is se d R ah m an i’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as m oo t. Rah m an i ap pe al s. Ari es o h as fil eda m ot io n fo r da m ag es an d c os ts pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. App . P. 38 . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Ari es o s umm ary jud gm en t o n R ah m an i’s co un te rcl ai m s o n the gro un d t ha t Ra hm an i’s fraudcla im reg ard in g h er em pl oym en t wi th Arie so fai ls as am at te r of law b ecau se of the m erg er cl au se in th e ag reem en t. Un de r Geo rg ialaw, i f a co nt ractco nt ai ns a m erg er cl au se th at sp eci fic al ly bars rel ia nc e o n a ny repre se nt at io ns no t s etforth inth e co nt ract , th e pa rty clai m in g fr au d i s b arre d fr om rel ia nc e o n a ny oth er re pr es en ta ti on s. 2Reic hma n v . So uthe rn Ear , Nos e & Th ro at

Su rg eo ns , P.C. ,. 59 8 S .E.2d12 , 16 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 04 ) (“ If the co nt ractha s a m erg er cl au se an d t he pa rty has affi rm edth e co nt ract , th e m erg er cl au se ge ne ral ly precl ud es an y frau d a ct io n fo r or al m is rep res en ta ti on s n otin cl ud edinth e ag reem en t” ). Furth erm or e, if th e p arty cl ai m in g fr au d d oe s n otsee k t o re sc in d t he co ntractan d t o re st or e an yth in g o f va lu e o bt ai ne d t he reu nd er, the m erg er cl au se inth e co nt ractis de te rm in at iv e. Mar ra le v. Gwin ne tt

Pla ce Fo rd , 60 9 S .E.2d65 9, 6 62 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 05 ). Inth is cas e, Rah m an i re adan d s ig ne d an a gr eem en t wi th Arie so th at co nt ai ne d am erg er cl au se sp eci fic al ly dis cl ai m in g a ny ves te d ri gh ts to pa y or be ne fit s –cla im s s he no w m ak es ba se d upo n re pr es en ta ti on s s he ass ert s wer e m ad e to he r ou ts id e th e ag reem en t. Exc lu si on of s uc h c la im s was th e v ery pu rp os e of th e ag reem en t. Fu rth erm or e, itis un di sp ut edth atsh e h as ne ve r so ug htto res ci ndth is ag reem en t o r to return t he pa ym en ts subs eque nt ly m ad e to he r un de r th e ag reem en t. Si nc e itis un di sp ut edth atRah m an i re adan d s ig ne d t he ag reem en t an d t ha t sh e n ev er s ou gh t t o re sc in d i t o r return the pa ym en ts m ad e to he r, th e d is tri ctco urt he ldth atsh e fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth ere a re an y tri ab le m at eri al fact s as to whe th er s he jus ti fiabl y

rel ie d upo n a ny m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on s b y Arie so . The refo re, the di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t the m erg er cl au se ba rredhe r frau d c la im as a 3m at te r of

law. We fin d n o e rro r in th is co nc lu si on . As t o Ari es o’s m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s, we co nc lu de th atitis no t m eri to rio us . Altho ug h we a gr ee wi thArie so th atm uc h o f Rah m an i’s ap pe ll at e arg um en t i s di rect edat i rrel ev an t i ss ue s, s he do es arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinit s ap pl ic at io n o f th e m erg er cl au se an d t ha t u nd er Geo rg ialaw s he is no t al way s requi redto see k t o re sc in d the co nt ract . Whi le we fin d n o m eri t t o h er ar gu m en ts , we can no t co nc lu de th atth ey are t ot al ly friv ol ou s. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s due to be affi rm edan d t he m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s t o b e d en ie d. AFFIR MED. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED.

4