Gil Medina, an individual, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TREJO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-21No. No. 20-56187

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment confirming the arbitration award because Medina's petition to vacate was untimely filed, failing to meet the three-month service requirement, and therefore the court declined to review his remaining challenges to the award.

Gil Medina challenged an arbitration award issued in favor of Danny Trejo against Medina and his company, ITN Flix, LLC. Medina filed a petition in district court seeking to vacate the award, but the district court rejected his petition and instead confirmed the arbitration award. Medina appealed, arguing the award should be overturned.

The appellate court rejected Medina's appeal on procedural grounds. The court found that Medina filed his petition to vacate too late—specifically, he failed to serve Trejo or his attorney with notice of the petition within the three-month deadline required by federal arbitration law. Because the petition was untimely, the court declined to consider any of Medina's other arguments challenging the award.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Timeliness of petition to vacate arbitration award under federal law
Service requirements for vacating arbitration awards
Effect of procedural defects on appellate review

Procedural posture

Medina appealed pro se from the district court's judgment confirming an arbitration award and denying his petition to vacate it.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Gil Medina appeals pro se from the district courts judgment confirming an award in an arbitration brought by Danny Trejo against Medina and his company, ITN Flix, LLC (ITN). The district court denied Medinas petition to vacate the award, and granted Trejos request to confirm it. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that Medinas petition to vacate the arbitration award was untimely because Medina failed to serve Trejo or his counsel with notice of the petition within three months after the final arbitration award was delivered. See 9 U.S.C. § 12; see also Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Intl, Inc., 911 F.3d 1249, 1251–52 (9th Cir. 2018). In light of that untimeliness, we decline to review Medinas other challenges 1

to the district courts confirmation of the award. See Brotherhood of Teamsters Loc. No. 70 v. Celotex Corp., 708 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Lafarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1338–39 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 10–11; Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010).