Case Name: AMERICAN LEGAL FUNDING, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rayford L. ETHERTON, Jr., Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 09-15990
Parties: AMERICAN LEGAL FUNDING, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rayford L. ETHERTON, Jr., Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 696–696

Head Matter:
AMERICAN LEGAL FUNDING, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Rayford L. ETHERTON, Jr., Respondent-Appellant.
No. 09-15990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed April 1, 2010.
Elan Shai Mizrahi, John Michael Sticht, Jennings Haug & Cunningham, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Rayford L. Etherton, Jr., Mobile, AL, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Rayford L. Etherton, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of American Legal Funding, L.L.C. under the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 933 F.2d 1481, 1485 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.
The district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because Etherton did not demonstrate any ground for vacating, modifying, or correcting the award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9; Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582, 584, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170 L.Ed.2d 254 (2008) (explaining that a court must confirm an arbitration award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected under the exclusive grounds listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10 and 11).
Etherton's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellee's motion to strike portions of Etherton's opening brief is denied as moot.
Appellee's request for leave to file a request for fees on appeal is unnecessary because leave is not required. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.