Opinion ID: 3064630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: overview of the appeal

Text: On appeal, the United States asserts that the Central District of California erred in denying its motion to vacate the arbitration award. See 9 U.S.C. § 10. In addition, the United States continues to argue that it has not waived its sovereign immunity to the confirmation of an arbitration award under the FAA and, therefore, the Central District of California lacked authority to grant Park Place’s motion to confirm the award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9. In response, Park Place contends the Central District of California had jurisdiction to entertain the motion to confirm because the sovereign immunity question had already been resolved by the Federal Circuit and could not be re-raised in the district court. Park Place also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for postjudgment interest. We review a district court’s decision to confirm or vacate an arbitration award de novo. See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2007); Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996). We also review quesUNITED STATES v. PARK PLACE ASSOCIATES 4681 tions of sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999). Because, as we explain, there are different jurisdictional bases for the motion to vacate and the motion to confirm, we first consider the United States’ motion to vacate and then turn to Park Place’s motion to confirm.