ARTZ AS TRUSTEE OF EDWARD JAMES ARTZ TRUST v. FLORA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-25No. No. 20-16321

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing Artz's action to compel arbitration was affirmed because Artz failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.

Edward James Artz appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his action to compel arbitration. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed, concluding that Artz failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a district court may only compel arbitration when a valid arbitration agreement exists, but Artz's complaint did not contain adequate factual allegations to satisfy this requirement.

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

Key issues

Whether Artz pleaded sufficient facts to establish a valid arbitration agreement
Whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
Allegations of constitutional violations or judicial impropriety by the district court

Procedural posture

Artz appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his complaint seeking to compel arbitration, with appellate review conducted de novo.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Edward James Artz appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action seeking to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kilgore v. KeyBank, Natl Assn, 718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (denial of motion to compel arbitration); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Artzs action because Artz failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Kilgore, 718 F.3d at 1058 (Federal Arbitration Act mandates that the district court “shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed,” and the district court must determine “whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists” (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

We reject as without merit Artzs contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights, or otherwise acted with impropriety or gave the appearance of impropriety in its conduct.

Artzs “motion to obtain sealed document” (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (record on appeal includes original papers and exhibits filed in the district court); 9th Cir. R. 30-1.3 (pro se appellant need not file excerpts of record).

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.