NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES Nos. 15-15866
INCORPORATED, subsidiary of 15-16417
Ameriprise Financial Incorporated,
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00935-DGC
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellee,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
IJEAMAKA EKWEANI, Wife; HENRY
EKWEANI, Husband,
Defendants-counter-
claimants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Ijeamaka and Henry Ekweani appeal pro se
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
from the district court’s summary judgment and order granting attorney’s fees in
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.’s (“AFSI”) declaratory judgment action. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. N. Cty. Commc’ns
Corp. of Ariz. v. Qwest Corp., 824 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for AFSI and entered
a declaratory judgment because AFSI demonstrated the Ekweanis’ knowledge of
an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice to
AFSI. See Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016) (a party seeking
to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must demonstrate knowledge of an existing
right to compel arbitration, acts inconsistent with that existing right, and prejudice
to the opposing party).
Contrary to the Ekweanis’ contentions, the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction over this action because the “underlying substantive controversy”
involved arbitration of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. Vaden v. Discover
Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 62 (2009); see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family
Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 848 (2014) (when determining declaratory
judgment jurisdiction, courts must look to “whether a coercive action brought by
the declaratory judgment defendant . . . would necessarily present a federal
2 15-15866
question” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $25,000 in
attorney’s fees because the district court considered each of the factors set forth in
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (in
banc). See Med. Protective Co. v. Pang, 740 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2013)
(standard of review).
AFSI’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in its answering brief in Appeal
No. 15-16417, is denied.
15-15866: AFFIRMED.
15-16417: AFFIRMED.
3 15-15866