BILLY TAYLOR V. CEHE, No. 17-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILLY TAYLOR, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15469 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00463-DKD v. MEMORANDUM* CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE HIGHER EDUCATION, AKA CEHE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David K. Duncan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 10, 2018*** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Billy Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and confirming the arbitration award in * 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). Taylor’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (order confirming arbitration award); Harden v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) (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 K–Line Builders, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 677 P.2d 1317, 1320 (Az. Ct. App. 1983) (mutuality not needed in the presence of consideration). Taylor waived any challenge to the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award by failing to raise his arguments to the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”). Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 28) is granted. Center for Excellence in Higher Education’s request for sanctions, attorney’s fees, and costs, set forth in the motion to strike, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-15469

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.