Kevin Jackson v. Applied Materials Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 18, 2023
• Docket: 22-16673
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN F. JACKSON, No. 22-16673

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-06007-VKD

v. MEMORANDUM* APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION; KEITH DUPEN, Managing Director Human Resources,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 10, 2023***

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Kevin F. Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

action alleging federal discrimination and retaliation claims against his former

* 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). employer. We have 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); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (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

Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing

unconscionability defense to arbitration agreement under California law).

The district court properly confirmed the arbitration awards because Jackson

did not demonstrate any ground for vacating, modifying, or correcting the interim

award of summary disposition or the final award of attorney’s fees and costs. See

9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11; Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 663-64 (9th Cir.

2012) (establishing procedure for confirmation of arbitration awards, and grounds

for vacating, modifying, or correcting such awards).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States

2 22-16673 v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Defendants’ motion to strike Jackson’s non-record documents and opening

brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-16673