Court Opinion

ID: 9911096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 16:01:27.02415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:14.342652
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eighth Circuit
                    ___________________________

                            No. 23-2494
                    ___________________________

                              Joseph O. Dixon

                    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                       v.

                        Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

                   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                  ____________

                 Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Minnesota
                              ____________

                      Submitted: December 14, 2023
                        Filed: December 19, 2023
                              [Unpublished]
                             ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Joseph Dixon appeals following the district court’s1 judgment denying his
petition to vacate an adverse arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act and
dismissing this civil action against Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab).

      After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dixon’s motion to
disqualify the law firm representing Schwab, see A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst, 56 F.3d 849,
859 (8th Cir. 1995) (reviewing for abuse of discretion determination whether to
disqualify counsel); and Dixon did not identify any conduct warranting sanctions, see
Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2017) (district court
may impose sanctions on counsel for abusing judicial process or for filing paper for
any improper purpose). In addition, there was good cause to delay a pretrial
conference and scheduling order while Schwab’s motion to dismiss was pending. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2) (judge must issue scheduling order within prescribed time
period, unless judge finds good cause for delay).

       We further conclude the district court did not err in denying Dixon’s petition
to vacate the arbitration award and granting the cross-motion to confirm the award,
see Manion v. Nagin, 392 F.3d 294, 298 (8th Cir. 2004) (on review of confirmation
of arbitration award, factual findings reviewed for clear error and questions of law
reviewed de novo); or in dismissing the complaint as barred by res judicata, see
Banks v. Int’l Union Elec. Workers, 390 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2004) (dismissal
on grounds of res judicata reviewed de novo).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Jerry W. Blackwell, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

                                         -2-