FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRUDENTIAL EQUITY GROUP, LLC, No. 08-15972
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-CV-00801-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ARLENE D. ROWLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Arlene D. Rowland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
confirming an arbitration award in favor of Prudential Equity Group, LLC under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LBS/Research
the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9, and denying her motions for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the confirmation of an arbitration award
and review for clear error any district court factual findings that underlie its
decision. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
933 F.2d 1481, 1485 (9th Cir. 1991). We review for abuse of discretion the denial
of a motion for reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because
Prudential filed a timely application, the parties agreed that a court could enter
judgment upon the arbitration award, and neither party moved to vacate, modify, or
correct the award as prescribed by the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 (a court must grant
an application to confirm an arbitration award brought within one year after the
award is made so long as the parties who arbitrated the dispute agreed that a court
would be able to enter judgment upon the arbitration award “unless the award is
vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title”).
Further, contrary to Rowland’s contentions, the district court correctly
concluded that venue was proper because the award was issued in Arizona and the
district court had diversity jurisdiction. See 9 U.S.C. § 9 (if no court is specified in
LBS/Research 2 08-15972
an arbitration agreement then a party may apply “to the United States court in and
for the district within which such award was made”); Carter v. Health Net of
Calif., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2004) (FAA is not a grant of subject matter
jurisdiction and therefore a federal court must have an independent jurisdictional
basis).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Rowland’s
motions for reconsideration because she did not demonstrate grounds for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
Rowland’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.
LBS/Research 3 08-15972