N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT ER IC STEINM ANN, a

n individua l; DOLORES FR

ANC O, a n individua l, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. ZTE C ORPOR

ATION, a

c om pa ny inc orpora te d unde r the l a ws of the Pe ople s R e p ublic of C hina ; ZTE (USA), INC ., a Ne w Je rse y c orpora tion,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55109 D.C . No. 5:11-c v-01578-B R O-SP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 8, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
J UN 19 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : GR AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B OLTON, *** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs Eric Ste inm a nn a nd Dolore s Fra nc o ha d a

c om m e rc ia l disputewith ZTE C orpora tion a

n d ZTE USA, Inc . (c olle c tive ly , " ZTE" ), an d a gre e d to a

rbitrate
som e of the ir c l a im s . Those c la im s inc lude d som e urge d by Pla intiffs in the ir individua l c a

pa c itie s a n d som e brought by

e ntitie s tha

t Pla intiff Ste i nm a nn
c ontrolle d. The arbitrator issue d a sum m a ry a djudic a tion dism

issing the individua l
c la im s. The re a fte r, the pa rtie s a rbitrate d the e ntitie s ’ c la im s, whic h we re re solve d in ZTE’ s favor; tha

t a ward wa s c onfirm e d. La

te r, Pla intiffs m o ve d to re o pe n the ir individua l c a se to va c a te the dism issa l, a nd ZTE re sponde d with a m otion to
c onfirm t ha t a ward. The distric t c ourt gra nte d ZTE’ s m otion to c onfirm the award dism issing the individua l c la im s, a nd de nie d Pla intiffs’ m otion to va c a te it. Pla i ntiffs tim e ly

a ppe a l from

the re sulting fina l judgm e nt. W he n re vie wing the c onfirm a tion of a n a rbitration a

ward, we de c ide que stions of la

w de novo a

nd a c c e pt findings of fa c t tha t a re not c l e a rly e rrone ous. C oute e v. B a rington C a

pita l Grp., L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th C ir. 2003). Pla i ntiffs a

rgue tha t the award dism issing the i r individua l c la im s is fa ta lly infirm

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n R . B olton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion. 2unde r 9 U.S.C
. § 10(a )(4) be c a use the de c ision wa s ina de quate ly re a sone d . W e
a ffirm
. Unde r the Am e ric a n Arbitra tion Assoc ia tion’ s Inte rnationa l C e ntre for Dispute R e solution (" IC D R " ) Arbitration R ule s gove rning the arbitration, Pla intiffs ha d a n opportunity

to a sk the tribuna l to inte rpre t or c o rre c t the award. IC DR art. 30(1) (2009). 1 Unde r the n-Artic le 25 of those rule s, if a pa rty knows tha

t the
a rbitrator ha s not c om

plie d with a

ny re quire m e nt of the rule s, but proc e e ds with the
a rbitration without prom

ptly obje c ting in writing, the

pa rty " sha l l be de e m e d to have wa ive d the right to obje c t." IC D R art. 25 (2009); se e a lso IC DR art. 28 (2014). Pla intiffs kne w of the a lle ge d de fe c t whe n the dism issa l oc c urre d, a nd the y kne w tha t the y c ould a s k the arbitrator to c orre c t the de fe c t; the e ntitie s e ve n sought a nd re c e ive d a

c orre c tion to the ir own a ward a t the e nd of the arbitration. Pla i ntiffs ne ve rthe le ss fa ile d to re que st a

c la rific a tion or c orre c tion to the award dism issing the i r individua l c la im s. W holly a pa rt from the spe c ific wa ive r rule c onta ine d in the gove rning te rm s of this a rbitra tion, it is we l l-se ttle d tha

t a pla intiff wa ive s obje c t ions not brought be fore the arbitrators c o n te m p orane ously
. W e llm a n

v. Write rs Guild of Am ., W .,

1 The IC DR

rule s ha ve sinc e be e n

a m e nde d, but the rule pe rsists. IC DR art. 33(1) (2014). 3Inc
. , 146 F.3d 666, 669–70 (9th C ir. 1998); M a rino v. W rite rs Guild of Am ., E., Inc
. , 992 F.2d 1480, 1484 (9th C ir. 1993). B e c a u se Pla intiffs fa ile d to re que st a
re a s one d de c ision from

the arbitrat or, the y

wa i ve d the right to c ha lle nge the de c ision in fe de ra l c ourt. AFFIRM E D
.

4