Parsons

MEMORANDUM **

Gary Parsons appeals the district court’s denial of his “Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award” and grant of Howard Polen’s and Raymond James Financial *729 Services’s (collectively “respondents”) “Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award.” Parsons claims the district court erred in upholding the arbitration award in his favor because the arbitration panel “manifestly disregarded the law” by applying Washington state law rather than Arizona state law—allegedly resulting in a lower damages ' award—to Parsons’s claims of misrepresentations, omission of facts, unsuitability, failure to supervise and negligence arising from Parsons’s purchase of an annuity from respondents. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

When reviewing the confirmation or vacation of an arbitration award by the district court, we “accept[] findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous but decid[e] questions of law de novo. ” Barnes v. Logan, 122 F.3d 820, 821 (9th Cir.1997) (citing First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947, 115 S.Ct. 1920 , 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “However, judicial review of an arbitrator’s…