NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL C. OLSON, No. 14-35586
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05585-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HARLAND CLARKE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel C. Olson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
employment action. 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 F.3d 424, 427 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 1996). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. United States v.
Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1992).
This appeal arises from Olson’s action against Harland Clarke Corporation
(“Harland Clarke”) to challenge the manner in which he was compensated for his
services and terminated from his position. Following two days of arbitration
hearings, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of Harland Clarke. Olson sought
to vacate the award on the bases that the arbitrator failed to issue a “reasoned
opinion,” as agreed to by the parties and failed to rule on all of the evidentiary
issues and claims submitted. The district court denied Olson’s motion and entered
judgment for Harland Clarke.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) enumerates the “limited grounds on
which a federal court may vacate, modify, or correct an arbitral award.” Bosack v.
Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Olson argues the arbitration award should be vacated under 9
U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), which provides for vacatur “where the arbitrators exceeded their
powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award
upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” Arbitrators exceed their powers
when they express a “manifest disregard of law,” or when they issue an award that
2 14-35586
is “completely irrational.” Bosack, 586 F.3d at 1104. For an award to express a
manifest disregard of the law, “it must be clear from the record that the arbitrator
recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” Id. An award is completely
irrational “only where the arbitration decision fails to draw its essence from the
agreement.” Id. at 1106 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Assuming, as did the district court, that the parties reached an agreement
for an arbitration award in the form of a “reasoned opinion,” the district court
properly denied Olson’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. “Arbitrators have
no obligation . . . to give their reasons for an award.” Stead Motors of Walnut
Creek v. Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1173, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, 886 F.2d 1200, 1206 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655,
666 (9th Cir. 2012) (arbitrator’s purported failure to provide a written decision to
facilitate judicial review did not alone support vacatur under the FAA, even though
such a written decision was required by the parties’ agreement). Further, the
arbitration award included two bases for the arbitrator’s determination that Harland
Clarke was the prevailing party, which provides enough of the arbitrator’s
reasoning to facilitate the limited review available under the FAA. See Biller, 668
3 14-35586
F.3d at 666 (the award was “sufficient to permit limited judicial review to enforce
or vacate the arbitration award” because it provided enough reasoning to determine
“whether the Arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law or made an irrational
decision”).
Olson’s argument that the arbitrator did not rule on all of the evidentiary
issues does not support vacatur. As this court has observed, “[a]rbitrators’ awards
are not judicial opinions. . . . The proceedings the arbitrator conducts are generally
informal, lacking most of the fixed rules of procedure and evidence . . . .” Stead
Motors of Walnut Creek, 886 F.2d at 1206. Further, the record does not support
Olson’s contention that the arbitrator failed to rule on all of the claims submitted
for arbitration, because the award states that “[a]ll claims not expressly granted
herein are hereby, denied.”
AFFIRMED.
4 14-35586