Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chuks ODIGWE, an individual, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, a corporation, aka Sprint/Nextel Communications, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 11-16539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 13, 2012.
    Chuks Odigwe, Chandler, AZ, pro se.
    Peter Michael Salcido, Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defen-danl>-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 contract and consumer fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, PowerAgent Inc. 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, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008) (Federal Arbitration Act provides exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitral award).

Odigwe’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.