Global Ebusiness Services, Inc.; Syed Nazim Ali v. Interactive Brokers LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLOBAL EBUSINESS SERVICES, INC.;
SYED NAZIM ALI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-17260
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01264-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying a
petition to vacate an arbitration award entered against Global eBusiness Services,
Inc., and granting Interactive Brokers LLC’s motion to confirm the award. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17260
On June 13, 2018, this court ordered new counsel for appellant Global
eBusiness Services, Inc., to file a notice of appearance within 14 days. The order
warned that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal
by the Clerk of the Court. To date, no new counsel has filed a notice of
appearance. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute as to
Global eBusiness Services, Inc. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.
We do not consider Ali’s contentions on behalf of Global eBusiness Services,
Inc. because Ali, who is appearing pro se, may not represent a corporation. See
C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
The district court properly dismissed Ali because he was not a party to the
underlying arbitration proceeding, and lacks statutory standing to challenge the
arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (enumerating grounds on which the district court
may vacate an arbitral award “upon the application of any party to the
arbitration”).
Ali’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied.
DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --