NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRADLEY SAYRE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JP MORGAN CHASE SECURITIES, LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC; DOES, 1

- 10 , Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55411
D.C. No. 3 :17

- cv - 00449

- JLS

- MDD

MEMORANDUM *

BRADLEY SAYRE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 55412
D.C. No. 3 :17

- cv - 02285

- JLS

- MDD

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino , District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 1 5 , 2019 San Diego, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

OCT 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Bradley Sayre appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate
an arbitration award and dismissing his amended complaint

. We review the denial
of vacatur and the dismissal ruling de novo , and review factual findings underlyi ng that ruling for clear error. See Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corp. , 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996) ; Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008). We reverse.
1. Judicial review of an arbitration award is “both limited and highly
deferential.” Aspic Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC , 913 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs. , 553 F.3d 1277, 1288 (9th Cir. 2009) ) . “ Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal court review [

. ] ” Id

. (quoting Bosack
v. Soward , 586 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) ). An award may be vacated, however, due to “ the arbitrary denial of a r easonable request for postponement .” Sheet Metal Workers Int’l. Ass’n Local Union No. 420 v. Kinney Air Conditioning
Co. , 756 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1985) ; see 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3)

. This case presents one of the rare instances where an arbitration award must be vacated due to the arbitration panel’s arbitrary denial of a reasonable request for postponement. The arbitration pane l denied Sayre’s counsel’s request for a
continuance , even though it is undisputed that he had a medical emergency. A t the3

time of the continuance request, only half a day of a scheduled nine

- day arbitration hearing had been completed and only a single witness had testified

. After denying postponement, the pane l proceeded in Sayre’s counsel’s absence, admitting exhibits
i nto evidence and hearing only the defense’s closing argument. T he panel then summarily denied Sayre’s claims without articulating how it could have render ed a “comprehensive evaluation” based o n only a portion of Sayre’s case

- in

- chief and without addressing why it could not have grant ed a continuance at least for the three days for which the doctor had placed Sayre’s counsel off work

. Because the panel arbitrarily denied Sayre’s reasonable request for postponement, see Sheet Metal Workers, 756 F.2d at 746 , we reverse and vacate the
arbitration award.
2. Res judicata bars claims if an earlier suit: (1) involved the same claims; (2)

“ rea ched a final judgment on the merits ” ; and (3) “ involved identical parties or privies

. ” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro

- Optical Sys. , 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sidhu v. Flecto Co. , 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002) )

. Since the
arbitration award i s vacated, it is no longer a “final judgment on the merits” and therefore has no res judicata effect on Sayre’s amended complaint. See id

. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the amended complaint.
REVERSED

.Sayre v. JPMorgan , No. 18

- 55411 , 18

- 55412 OWENS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In light of all the circumstances before the arbitration panel

— including Sayre’s last

- minute announcement that he would be unavailable
for 12 weeks

— and the extremely deferential standard of review accorded to an arbitration panel’s decision, I cannot say the district court erred by denying Sayre’s
motion to vacate the arbitration award

. 

# FILED

OCT 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U .S. COURT OF APPEALS