Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GLOBAL EBUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; Syed Nazim Ali, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying a petition to vacate an arbitration award entered against Global eBusiness Services, Inc., and granting Interactive Brokers LLC’s motion to confirm the award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
On June 13, 2018, this court ordered new counsel for appellant Global eBusiness Services, Inc., to file a notice of appearance within 14 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To date, no new counsel has filed a notice of appearance. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute as to Global eBusiness Services, Inc. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.
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).
The district court properly dismissed Ali because he was not a party to the underlying arbitration proceeding, and lacks statutory standing to challenge the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (enumerating grounds on which the district court may vacate an arbitral award “upon the application of any party to the arbitration”).
Ali’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied.
DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-17260
Decided: October 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)