eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-06

Itn Flix, LLC v. Danny Trejo ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 21 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ITN FLIX, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability          No.    20-56187
company,
D.C. No.
Petitioner,                        2:20-cv-01978-ODW-AGR
and
MEMORANDUM*
GIL MEDINA, an individual,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DANNY TREJO, an individual,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 17, 2021 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gil Medina appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment confirming an
award in an arbitration brought by Danny Trejo against Medina and his company,
ITN Flix, LLC (ITN). The district court denied Medina’s petition to vacate the
award, and granted Trejo’s request to confirm it. We affirm.
We agree with the district court that Medina’s petition to vacate the
arbitration award was untimely because Medina failed to serve Trejo or his counsel
with notice of the petition within three months after the final arbitration award was
delivered. See
    9 U.S.C. § 12
    ; see also Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.,
    911 F.3d 1249
    , 1251–52 (9th Cir. 2018). In light of that untimeliness, we decline to review
Medina’s other challenges1 to the district court’s confirmation of the award. See
Brotherhood of Teamsters Loc. No. 70 v. Celotex Corp.,
    708 F.2d 488
    , 490 (9th
Cir. 1983); see also Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum
Corp.,
    791 F.2d 1334
    , 1338–39 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
1
See
    9 U.S.C. §§ 10
    –11; Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs.,
Inc.,
    341 F.3d 987
    , 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Lagstein v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,
    607 F.3d 634
    , 641 (9th Cir. 2010).
2