Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chris DITTENHAFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIGROUP, also known, as Citibank, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-16909.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
    Chris Dittenhafer, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Joshua J. Cliffe, Esquire, Littler Mendelson, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chris Dittenhafer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly compelled arbitration of Dittenhafer’s claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) and California law because the arbitration policy in defendant’s employee handbook covered Dittenhafer’s statutory employment discrimination claims and was not substantively unconscionable. See id. (federal court’s role under the FAA is limited to determining whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and whether it encompasses the dispute at issue); see also AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1746, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (California law requires both procedural and substantive unconscionability for a court to invalidate an arbitration clause).

Dittenhafer’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.