FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 13 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHERRI R. ROBERTS, AKA Sherri No. 14-36038
Roberts,
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00083-SEH
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LAME DEER PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
District No. 6,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 9, 2017**
Portland, Oregon
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Sherri R. Roberts appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment dismissing her Section 1983 procedural due process claim relating to her
*
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).
termination by Lame Deer Public Schools. Because the facts are known to the
parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
I
Roberts argues that the district court erred in granting Lame Deer Public
School’s summary judgment motion after determining her procedural due process
claim was foreclosed by claim preclusion. She also argues that the district court
erred when it concluded that even if preclusion did not bar her claim, her claim
fails on the merits because she was accorded adequate procedural due process.
A
Roberts argues that the combination of the post-termination arbitration
hearing and the statutory limits on judicial review of its result violates her
procedural due process rights. Her attorney argued before the district court that
“there has been no effective review by an independent judicial body on the merits
of this case” and that this lack of merits review of the arbitration is “an egregious
violation of her due process rights.”
Roberts could have brought this procedural due process claim in Montana
state court when she challenged the arbitrator’s decision there. See Roberts v. Lame
Deer Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 314 P.3d 647 (Mont. 2013). Instead, she chose only to
attempt to vacate the arbitration decision when she filed her previous lawsuit. Id.
2
Therefore, claim preclusion bars her from litigating a claim that she could have
raised in an earlier proceeding. See Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass’n v. City of San
Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993); Hollister v. Forsythe, 918 P.2d 665,
667 (Mont. 1996).
B
Even if Roberts’ claim was not barred by claim preclusion, the district court
correctly concluded that she was accorded adequate procedural due process. She
received a hearing before she was terminated. She was able to challenge her
termination in arbitration, as mandated by the collective bargaining agreement to
which she was a party. Roberts, 314 P.3d at 648. After losing, she was then
permitted to challenge the arbitrator’s decision in court. Id. She did so in state
court and lost. Id. at 650. She received more than adequate procedural due process.
Montana law did not give her a right to a court hearing on the merits post-
arbitration. Id. at 649–50. In addition, Montana’s statute limiting judicial review of
arbitration decisions, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 27-5-312, -313, does not violate the
Constitution; in fact the statute is in many ways identical to its (constitutional)
federal version, 9 U.S.C. § 10. See Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 11
(1984); see also In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp’t Practices Litig., 737 F.3d
1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Through § 10 of the [Federal Arbitration Act],
3
Congress attempted to preserve due process while still promoting the ultimate goal
of speedy dispute resolution.” (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade
Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The [] grounds [in § 10] afford an
extremely limited review authority, a limitation that is designed to preserve due
process but not to permit unnecessary public intrusion into private arbitration
procedures.” (alterations in Wal-Mart)))).
II
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4