Pietro Sgromo v. Leonard Scott

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIETRO P.A. SGROMO, AKA Peter No. 22-15199
Anthony Sgromo,
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-08170-HSG
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT; EUREKA
INVENTIONS LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Pietro P.A. Sgromo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
diversity action denying Sgromo’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and
granting Leonard Gregory Scott’s motion to confirm the award. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Johnson v. Gruma
Corp., 614 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (confirmation of arbitration award);
Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir. 2007) (denial of motion to
vacate arbitration award). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”) governs this action because the parties did not “evidence a ‘clear intent’
to incorporate state law rules for arbitration.” See Johnson, 614 F.3d at 1066-67(citation omitted) (explaining the strong default presumption that the FAA supplies
the rules for arbitration).
The district court properly denied Sgromo’s motion to vacate the arbitration
award because the motion was time-barred. See 9 U.S.C. § 12 (providing that
notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award must be served on the opposing
party within three months after the award is filed or delivered).
Because the award was not vacated, modified, or corrected, the district court
properly granted Scott’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. See Biller v.
Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 663 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]f a party seeks a
judicial order confirming an arbitration award, the court must grant such an order
unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected[.]” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 22-15199
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).
Sgromo’s motion to vacate (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 22-15199