ALEJANDRO ALERS, JR. V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., No. 21-55325 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO ALERS, JR., PRO SE; HAZEL ALERS, PRO SE, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-55325 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08934-FLA-AGR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** M. SMITH, and FORREST, Circuit Judges * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order confirming an arbitration award and dismissing their complaint with prejudice. We affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, which concluded that the arbitration award was an enforceable final judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims and that plaintiffs had failed to show fraud, corruption, or any other factor rendering the award unsound pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). We also agree that plaintiffs may not challenge the arbitration agreement itself because they initiated the arbitration proceedings and indicated misgivings about the agreement only after the arbitrator began ruling against them. See ECC Cap. Corp. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 492, 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017); Reed v. Mut. Serv. Corp., 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 524, 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by Haworth v. Superior Ct., 235 P.3d 152, 158-59 & n.6 (Cal. 2010). Plaintiffs raise several new arguments on appeal, but we do not consider them because they were not properly raised in the district court. See Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2014). AFFIRMED. 2

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.