Case Name: Pasquale PUCELLA; Michela Afflitto, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SONOMA COFFEE CAFÉ LLC; et al., Defendants, and Becky Smith; Gordon Smith, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-01
Citations: 584 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 12-17433
Parties: Pasquale PUCELLA; Michela Afflitto, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SONOMA COFFEE CAFÉ LLC; et al., Defendants, and Becky Smith; Gordon Smith, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
Pasquale PUCELLA; Michela Afflitto, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SONOMA COFFEE CAFÉ LLC; et al., Defendants, and Becky Smith; Gordon Smith, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-17433.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed Aug. 1, 2014.
Richard L. Rosen, Lauren A. Lagrua, The Richard L. Rosen Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Becky Smith, Kalispel, MT, pro se.
Gordon Smith, Kalispel, MT, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Becky and Gordon Smith appeal pro se from the district court's judgment confirming an arbitration award against them due to their noncompliance with a local rule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We reverse and remand.
Because a review of the record shows that the arbitrator did not impose any liability against the Smiths in the arbitration award, summary confirmation of the arbitration award against the Smiths was improper. See United States v. Prairie Pharmacy, Inc., 921 F.2d 211, 212 (9th Cir.1990) (a district court abuses its discretion where "the record contains no evidence on which it could rationally base its decision" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment against the Smiths and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. We do not reach the Smiths' remaining contentions and we do not disturb the district court's judgment against any other defendant.
Appellees' request for attorneys' fees and costs, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.