Palomo v. Best Buy Stores, Lp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-2181
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN PALOMO, No. 24-2181 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:20-cv-08969-FMO-AGR v. MEMORANDUM* BEST BUY STORES, LP; DAMIEN PADA; FADI AMMOURI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 12, 2025**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Palomo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

confirming an arbitration award in favor of Best Buy and other defendants in

Palomo’s action alleging employment-related claims. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Monster Energy Co. v. City Beverages,

LLC, 940 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2019) (confirmation of arbitration award);

Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004)

(decision to grant motion to compel arbitration). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration

because the undisputed evidence shows that Palomo agreed to arbitration and that

the arbitration agreement relegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. See

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019) (“The

[Federal Arbitration] Act allows parties to agree by contract that an arbitrator,

rather than a court, will resolve threshold arbitrability questions as well as

underlying merits disputes.”).

The district court properly granted defendants’ motion to confirm the

arbitration award and denied Palomo’s motion to vacate it because Palomo did not

show that the award is “completely irrational or constitutes manifest disregard of

the law,” or establish any ground for vacating it. PowerAgent Inc. v. Elec. Data

Sys. Corp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted); see 9 U.S.C. § 10 (setting forth standard for vacating an arbitration

award).

Palomo’s contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the

arbitration award lacks merit because the district court properly stayed the action

2 24-2181 pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings and thus retained jurisdiction

over the action. See Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 561 (9th Cir.

2025) (explaining that when a district court grants a motion to compel arbitration

and stays the action under 9 U.S.C. § 3, it retains jurisdiction to confirm the

arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 9).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to rule on motions

that did not comply with local rules. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118,

1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review; “The district court has

considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local

rules that place parameters on briefing.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palomo’s post-

judgment motion to amend or set aside the judgment because Palomo did not

identify any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review

and grounds for reconsideration and relief from judgment).

Palomo’s contention that the district court erred in failing to address his

ERISA claim lacks merit because Palomo did not raise the claim in his operative

complaint.

3 24-2181 Palomo’s contentions that the district court violated his due process rights

and lacked personal jurisdiction over him are unsupported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-2181