Pietro Sgromo v. Leonard Scott

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-15199
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PIETRO P.A. SGROMO, AKA Peter No. 22-15199 Anthony Sgromo, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-08170-HSG Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT; EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

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

Pietro P.A. Sgromo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

diversity action denying Sgromo’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and

granting Leonard Gregory Scott’s motion to confirm the award. We have

* 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). 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 determined that the Federal Arbitration Act

(“FAA”) governs this action because the parties did not “evidence a ‘clear intent’

to incorporate state law rules for arbitration.” See Johnson, 614 F.3d at 1066-67

(citation omitted) (explaining the strong default presumption that the FAA supplies

the rules for arbitration).

The district court properly denied Sgromo’s motion to vacate the arbitration

award because the motion was time-barred. See 9 U.S.C. § 12 (providing that

notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award must be served on the opposing

party within three months after the award is filed or delivered).

Because the award was not vacated, modified, or corrected, the district court

properly granted Scott’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. See Biller v.

Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 663 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]f a party seeks a

judicial order confirming an arbitration award, the court must grant such an order

unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected[.]” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 22-15199 in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sgromo’s motion to vacate (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-15199