GLOBAL EBUSINESS SERVICES INC v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY INC FINRA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his and Global eBusiness Services, Inc.’s diversity action alleging state law claims arising from an arbitration proceeding before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) panel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). N.M. State Inv. Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 641 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ali’s claims on the basis of arbitral immunity because the claims alleged “effectively seek[ ] to challenge the decisional act of an arbitrator or an arbitration panel.” Sacks v. Dietrich, 663 F.3d 1065, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2011) (arbitral immunity exists to “protect the decision-maker from undue influence and protect the decision-making process from reprisals by dissatisfied litigants” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

We do not consider Ali’s contentions on behalf of Global eBusiness Services, Inc. because Ali, who is appearing pro se, may not represent a corporation. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.