Chia v. Fidelity Brokerage Services

3 F. App'x 642
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2001
DocketNo. 99-17138; D.C. No. CV-99-00027-VRW
StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. App'x 642 (Chia v. Fidelity Brokerage Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chia v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, 3 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Samuel G. Chia appeals pro se the district court’s judgment declining to vacate the National Association of Securities Dealers’ arbitration decision that dismissed as time-barred his claim alleging that Fidelity Brokerage Services defrauded him and breached its fiduciary duty in relation to a bad investment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision confirming an arbitration decision and denying vacatur. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh 933 F.2d 1481, 1485 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

Because Chia had actual or constructive knowledge of his claim in September 1992, his claim is time-barred. See Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., 649 F.2d 641, 644-45 (9th Cir.1980). Chia’s contentions regarding tolling, that a six-year statute of limitations applies, or that the arbitrators and district court exceeded their power lack merit.

We deny Fidelity’s request to strike portions of the record.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. App'x 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chia-v-fidelity-brokerage-services-ca9-2001.