Global Ebusiness Servs., Inc. v. Finra ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLOBAL EBUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; No. 18-15716
SYED NAZIM ALI,
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06095-JD
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, INC. (FINRA),
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his and Global eBusiness Services, Inc.’s diversity action alleging state law claims
arising from an arbitration proceeding before a Financial Industry Regulatory
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Authority (“FINRA”) panel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). N.M. State Inv. Council
v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ali’s claims on the basis of arbitral
immunity because the claims alleged “effectively seek[] to challenge the decisional
act of an arbitrator or an arbitration panel.” Sacks v. Dietrich, 663 F.3d 1065,
1069-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (arbitral immunity exists to “protect the decision-maker
from undue influence and protect the decision-making process from reprisals by
dissatisfied litigants” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider Ali’s contentions on behalf of Global eBusiness Services,
Inc. because Ali, who is appearing pro se, may not represent a corporation. See
C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15716