Microsoft

MEMORANDUM

David Anthony Stebbins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action to enforce an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stebbins’s action because Stebbins’s unilateral amendments to an existing contract with Microsoft Corporation did not give rise to a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. See First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 , 115 S.Ct. 1920 , 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) (state law principles of contract formation generally govern the determination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter); Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 152 Wash.2d 171 , 94 P.3d 945 , 949 (2004) (under Washington state law, “the parties must objectively manifest their mutual assent” to form a contract).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Stebbins failed to…