Seaton v. Scientific Hygiene

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1497 KENNETH SEATON; MARGARET SEATON, as individ- uals doing business as Hi-Tech Hygiene, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SCIENTIFIC HYGIENE, INCORPORATED, a Nevada Corporation; KENNETH KROLL, individually; ROBERT WARMINGTON, individually, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-127) Submitted: March 31, 1997 Decided: September 9, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Seaton, Margaret Seaton, Appellants Pro Se. Hugo Nathan Gerstl, LAW OFFICE OF HUGO N. GERSTL, Monterey, California, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kenneth and Margaret Seaton appeal the district court's order deferring to the judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County, California, under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994), and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Seaton v. Scientific Hygiene, Inc., No. CA-95-127 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 27, 1996). We deny Appellants' motion to partially remand this case and to stay the appeal, and their motions to submit new evidence and to show an Infomercial. We also deny Appellants' motion to submit further evidence to show that the arbitrator acted fraudulently. We grant Appellees' motion requesting that we take judicial notice, but deny their motions to strike, to dismiss, and to impose sanctions. We deny Appellants' motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2