Lydon v. Turner Construction Co.

Ninth Circuit

Lydon v. Turner Construction Co.

320 F. App'x 665

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

DocketNo. 06-56731

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 665 (Lydon v. Turner Construction Co.) 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

Lydon v. Turner Construction Co., 320 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Cathy L. Lydon appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of her former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Lydon’s rescission argument was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Lydon did not demonstrate either her diligence in the prior action or that her employer concealed the January 17, 2003 document from her. See W. Sys. Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871-72 (9th Cir.1992) (“Ignorance of a party does not ... avoid the bar of res judicata unless the ignorance was caused by the misrepresentation or concealment of the opposing party.”); Allied Fire Prot. v. Diede Constr., Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 200 (Cal.Ct.App.2005) (same).

The district court also properly concluded that the arbitrator’s written findings were adequate. See A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (noting that “arbitrators are not required to state the reasons for their decisions.”).

Lydon’s remaining contentions, including those regarding arbitrator bias and judicial estoppel, are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Cathy L. Lydon appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of her former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Lydon’s rescission argument was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Lydon did not demonstrate either her diligence in the prior action or that her employer concealed the January 17, 2003 document from her. See W. Sys. Inc. v. Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871-72 (9th Cir.1992) (“Ignorance of a party does not ... avoid the bar of res judicata unless the ignorance was caused by the misrepresentation or concealment of the opposing party.”); Allied Fire Prot. v. Diede Constr., Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 195, 200 (Cal.Ct.App.2005) (same).

The district court also properly concluded that the arbitrator’s written findings were adequate. See A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (noting that “arbitrators are not required to state the reasons for their decisions.”).

Lydon’s remaining contentions, including those regarding arbitrator bias and judicial estoppel, are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lydon-v-turner-construction-co-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack