Robert Mawhinney v. American Airlines, Inc. , 692 F. App'x 937 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT STEVEN MAWHINNEY, No. 16-55006
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00259-MMA-
BLM
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Robert Steven Mawhinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
denying his petition to vacate an arbitration award entered against him and
granting American Airlines, Inc’s petition to confirm the award. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Collins v. D.R. Horton,
*
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).
Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Mawhinney’s petition to vacate the
arbitration award because Mawhinney’s allegations of arbitrator misconduct, and
his disagreements with the arbitration process and result, failed to demonstrate any
of the statutory grounds for vacating the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10. See Kyocera
Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (“Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual
findings justify federal court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is
unambiguous in this regard.”); see also U.S. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat’l Ins.
Co., 591 F.3d 1167, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Arbitrators enjoy wide discretion to
require the exchange of evidence, and to admit or exclude evidence, how and when
they see fit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mawhinney’s
motion to alter or amend the judgment because Mawhinney failed to establish any
basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 16-55006
Mawhinney’s requests to supplement the record, set forth in his reply brief,
are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-55006