Naeini v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-5357
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AVA NAEINI, No. 24-5357 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-07118-AB-BFM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DOES, 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Naeini’s motion (Docket Entry No. 3) to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted.

Ava Naeini appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment confirming an

arbitration award in favor of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation under

the Federal Arbitration Act. 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); 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 confirmed the arbitration award because Naeini

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

award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“[T]he court must [confirm an arbitration award] unless

the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of

this title.”); Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582, 582-84

(2008) (holding that the statutory grounds to vacate, modify, or correct an

arbitration award are exclusive).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Naeini’s request for

production or her amended complaint for failure to comply with local rules. See

United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-75 (1958) (holding that local rules are

“laws of the United States”); Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir.

2008) (court reviews for abuse of discretion a district court’s decisions concerning

2 24-5357 its management of litigation).

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).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-5357