KEVIN JACKSON V. APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION, ET AL, No. 22-16673 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN F. JACKSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16673 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-06007-VKD v. MEMORANDUM* APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION; KEITH DUPEN, Managing Director Human Resources, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted October 10, 2023*** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Kevin F. Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal discrimination and retaliation claims against his former * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Johnson v. Gruma Corp., 614 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (confirmation of arbitration award); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (order compelling arbitration). We affirm. The district court properly granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration because the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement encompassing the dispute at issue. See Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n, 718 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2013) (Federal Arbitration Act requires that district courts refer cases to arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement covers the dispute at issue); see also Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing unconscionability defense to arbitration agreement under California law). The district court properly confirmed the arbitration awards because Jackson did not demonstrate any ground for vacating, modifying, or correcting the interim award of summary disposition or the final award of attorney’s fees and costs. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11; Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 663-64 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing procedure for confirmation of arbitration awards, and grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting such awards). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States 2 22-16673 v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Defendants’ motion to strike Jackson’s non-record documents and opening brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 22-16673

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.