BESTWAY USA INC v. Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo, Defendant-Appellant, (2019)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
BESTWAY (USA), INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Leonard Gregory SCOTT; Eureka Inventions LLC, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo, Defendant-Appellant,
Wagmore & Barkless LLC, Defendant. Bestway (USA), Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo, Defendant-Appellant, Wagmore & Barkless LLC, Defendant,
Eureka Inventions LLC; Leonard Gregory Scott, Defendants-Cross-Claimants. Bestway (USA), Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo, Defendant-Appellant, Wagmore & Barkless LLC; et al., Defendants.
Nos. 18-16228, 18-17040
Decided: December 18, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
John S. Artz, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, Steven A. Caloiaro, Esquire, Dickinson Wright, Reno, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Thomas E. Moore, III, Esquire, Royse Law Firm, PC, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees. Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo, Canada, pro se.
In these consolidated appeals, Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment and orders in this diversity jurisdiction interpleader action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court properly denied Sgromo's motion to compel arbitration because appellees demonstrated Sgromo waived his right to arbitration. See Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2016) (whether a party has waived its right to arbitration is a matter “for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise”; waiver requires “knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration,” “acts inconsistent with that existing right,” and “prejudice to the party opposing arbitration” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because Sgromo failed to oppose cross-claimants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, we do not consider Sgromo's challenge to the district court's disposition of those motions. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536, 546 n.15 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well established that an appellate court will not reverse a district court on the basis of a theory that was not raised below.”); see also Novato Fire Prot. Dist. v. United States, 181 F.3d 1135, 1141 n.6 (9th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue at summary judgment waives right to raise issue on appeal). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sgromo's motion to file an oversized reply brief is granted. The Clerk will file the oversized brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 62 in No. 18-16228; Docket Entry No. 39 in No. 18-17040; Docket Entry No. 33 in No. 19-15709; and Docket Entry No. 29 in No. 19-15797.
Appellees' motion to seal is granted. The Clerk will maintain under seal appellees' supplemental excerpts of record, volume IV.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.