Olson
Olson v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Steven R. Olson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review questions of law de novo, Poweragent, Inc. v. Elec. Data Syst. Corp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly rejected Olson’s claim that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law while rendering their decision because Olson did not establish that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and intentionally ignored it. See Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 826 , 832-33 (9th Cir.1995).
The district court properly rejected Olson’s claim that the arbitration decision was fraudulently procured by the defendants because Olson did not allege specific facts that indicated the arbitration panel had improper motives. See Woods v. Saturn Distribution Corp., 78 F.3d 424, 427 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court properly rejected Olson’s claim that the arbitration proceedings were punctuated with several procedural errors because the arbitrators had jurisdiction to decide procedural issues, and none of their…