Billy Taylor v. Cehe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY TAYLOR, No. 17-15469
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00463-DKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE HIGHER
EDUCATION, AKA CEHE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David K. Duncan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 10, 2018***
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Billy Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s orders granting
defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and confirming the arbitration award in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Taylor’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (order
confirming arbitration award); Harden v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d
1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) (order compelling arbitration). We affirm.
The district court properly granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration
because the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement encompassing the
dispute at issue. See Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th
Cir. 2013) (Federal Arbitration Act requires that district courts refer cases to
arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement covers the dispute at issue); see also
K–Line Builders, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 677 P.2d 1317, 1320 (Az.
Ct. App. 1983) (mutuality not needed in the presence of consideration).
Taylor waived any challenge to the district court’s order confirming the
arbitration award by failing to raise his arguments to the district court. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not
consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s motion to strike (Docket Entry
No. 28) is granted. Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s request for
sanctions, attorney’s fees, and costs, set forth in the motion to strike, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15469