Chuks Odigwe v. Sprint Solutions Incorporated , 474 F. App'x 616 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUKS ODIGWE, an individual, No. 11-16539
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00745-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SPRINT SOLUTIONS
INCORPORATED, a corporation, AKA
Sprint/Nextel Communications,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Chuks Odigwe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment declining to
set aside an arbitration award in his action alleging state law claims for breach of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
contract and consumer fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Poweragent v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Odigwe’s motion to set aside the
arbitration award because Odigwe’s arguments regarding the arbitrability and the
merits of his claims failed to establish a valid ground to vacate an arbitral award
under the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (limiting vacatur of arbitral
awards to circumstances involving fraud, corruption, bias, misconduct, or arbitral
overreaching); Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 583 (2008)
(Federal Arbitration Act provides exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitral award).
Odigwe’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16539