ARTZ AS TRUSTEE OF EDWARD JAMES ARTZ TRUST v. FLORA (2021)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Edward James ARTZ, AS TRUSTEE OF The EDWARD JAMES ARTZ TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Royce T. FLORA, Maricopa County Treasurer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: January 25, 2021
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Edward James Artz, Pro Se Nancy Bonnell, ASATG, Eryn Marie McCarthy, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
Edward James Artz appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action seeking to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat'l Ass'n, 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 Artz's 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 Artz's contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights, or otherwise acted with impropriety or gave the appearance of impropriety in its conduct.
Artz's “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.
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.