NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON E. CAMPBELL, No. 14-17189
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02169-APG-
PAL
v.
NEVADA PROPERTY 1 LLC, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Leon E. Campbell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration
award and deny a motion to vacate the award. Woods v. Saturn Distrib. Corp., 78
*
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).
F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court properly granted Nevada Property 1 LLC’s motion to
confirm the arbitration award, and properly denied Campbell’s motion to vacate
the arbitration award, because Campbell failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded
the powers afforded by the terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4); Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607
F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Arbitrators exceed their powers . . . not when they
merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the award is
completely irrational, or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” (alteration in
original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also McClatchy
Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, Int’l Typographical
Union, 686 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding an award based on an
arbitrator’s interpretation of a contract term drew its essence from the agreement
where it “represent[ed] a plausible interpretation of the contract.” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider any claims that Campbell did not raise before the district
court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17189