N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ASTR O NIC S ELEC TR ONIC SYSTEM S C ORP., Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. M AGIC ALL, INC .,

R e sponde nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 22-35645

D.C . No. 2:22-c v-00729-TSZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington T hom a s S. Zilly , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2023 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : TALLM AN, C LIFTON, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. M AGic ALL, Inc . (M AGic ALL) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing its m otion to va c a te an a rbitration a

ward and gra

nting Astronic s Adva

nc e d 

# F IL ED MAY15 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Ele c tronic Sy ste m s C orp.’ s (AES) m otion to c o nfirm the award. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 9 U.S.C . § 16(a )(1)(D), a nd re vie w a distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to c onfirm an arbitrat ion a

ward de novo, though our

“ re vie w of the award itse lf is both lim i te d a nd highly de fe re n tia l.” Pow e r

Age nt Inc . v . Ele c . Data. Sy

s. C orp. , 358 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l c ita tion a nd quota t ion m a rks om itte d). W e a ffirm . The arbitrator wa s not “ guilty of m i sc onduc t” suffic i e nt to wa rra nt va c a tur. Se e 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(3). Ne ithe r the arbitrator’ s de nia l of M AGic A LL’ s untim e ly re que s t to re ope n

the he aring to a llow disc ove ry of c e rta in doc um e nts nor the arbitrator’ s de n ia l of M AGic A LL’ s re que st to subm it a re ply a ffida vit (whe n both pa rtie s ha d be e n wa

rne d tha t no furthe r brie fing would bea llowe d) viola te d M AGic ALL’ s’ s “ right to a funda m e nta lly fa ir he a

ring.” Mov e

, Inc . v . C itigroup Glob. Mark

e ts, Inc . , 840 F.3d 1152, 1154 (9th C ir. 2016). “ [A] rbitration is not gove rne d by the fe de ra l c ourts’ stric t proc e dura l a nd e v ide ntia

ry re quire m e nts,” and we are “ m i ndful not to im pose ” those re quire m e nts on a rbitration proc e e dings. U.S. Life Ins. C o . v . Supe r ior N

at. Ins. C o. , 591 F.3d 1167, 1173 (9th C ir. 2010). M AGic ALL ha s fa i le d to show tha t e i the r of the arbitrator’ s rulings m e rits

1 The c a ption inc orre c tly

re fe rs to AES a s Astronic s Ele c tronic Sy ste m s C orpora tion. 2“ de pa

rt[ure ] from

our usua l de fe re nc e to the proc e dura l rulings of a rbitrators.” Tristar Pic ture

s, Inc . v . Dir.’s Guild of Am., Inc . , 160 F.3d 537, 541 n.9 (9th C ir. 1998). The arbitrator a lso did not e xc e e d he r powe rs by orde ring M AGic ALL to re linquish c e rta in doc um e nts or inc luding a “ la st buy ” m e c ha

n ism a s pa rt of AES’ s award. Se e 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(4). W e “ hav e no a uthority to va c a te an a

ward sole ly be c a use of a n a lle ge d e rror in c ontra c t inte rpre ta t ion,” Emps. Ins. of W ausau v . N at’l Union Fire

Ins. C o. of Pittsburgh , 933 F.2d 1481, 1486 (9th C ir. 1991), a nd m ust a ffirm the arbitrator’ s de c ision “ [a ] s long a s the arbitrator is e ve n a rgua bly c onstruing or a

pply ing the c ontra c t,” Unite d Pape rw ork e rs Int’l Union, AFL-C

IO v . Misc o, Inc ., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). The arbitrator he re c onstrue d a nd a pplie d the M a ste r Purc ha se Agre e m e n t (M PA) in fa shioning the re m e die s tha

t M AGic ALL c ha lle n ge s on a ppe a l; thus, “ the award m u st be e nforc e d.” Ge orge Day C onstr. C o. v . Unite d Bhd. of C

arpe nte rs , 722 F.2d 1471, 1477 (9th C ir. 1984). M AGic ALL’ s argum e nts tha t the M PA did not re quire M AGic A LL to produc e any

doc um e nts until AES had form a l ly te rm inate d the M PA and tha t the arbitrator im

prope rly aw arde d AES a

“ d ouble re c ove ry ” are wa ive d be c a use M AGic ALL fa ile d

to ra ise the m

during a rbitration proc e e dings. Se e Marino v . W rite rs Guild of Am., E., Inc ., 992 F.2d 1480, 1484 (9th C ir. 1993). 3W e de ny AES’ s re que st in its a

nswe ring brie f for a ttorne y s’ fe e s a nd c osts unde r R ule 38 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of Appe lla

te Proc e dure be c a

use a R ule 38 re que s t “ m a de in a

n a ppe lla te brie f doe s not sa

tisfy R ule 38 a nd m ust be de nie d,” W inte rrow d v . Am. Ge n. Annuity Ins. C o. , 556 F.3d 815, 828 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion om itte d), a

nd M AGic All’ s a

rgum e nts, whileuna

va iling, a re not so

“ wholly without m e rit” a s to be c onside re d frivolous, Lahoti v . Ve ric he c k , Inc ., 636 F.3d 501, 511 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion om itte d). AFFIRM E D .

4