Vivi Robyn Stafford, an individual v. Baart Behavioral Health Services, Inc.; Baart Community Health Care

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIVI ROBYN STAFFORD, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BAART BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES, INC.; BAART
COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55588
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-00252-GW-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Vivi Stafford appeals the district court’s denial of her
motion to vacate the arbitration award against her and grant of Defendant-Appellee
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

BAART Behavioral Health Services’s (“BAART’s”) motion to confirm the
arbitration award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to enforce or vacate an
arbitration award. Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d
634, 640 (9th Cir. 2010).
The district court properly exercised subject matter over Stafford’s claims:
Stafford’s state law claims were sufficiently related to her original, federal ADA
cause of action, and the interest of judicial economy favored the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th
Cir. 2012) (district courts retain discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
even when all federal claims are dismissed).
A district court may vacate an arbitration award in only limited
circumstances prescribed by statute, including: where “the award was procured by
corruption, fraud, or undue means”; where there was evidence of “partiality or
corruption” in the arbitrators; where the arbitrators were guilty of “misconduct” or
“misbehavior”; or where “the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly
executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted was not made.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court properly denied Stafford’s motion to vacate the arbitration
award because Stafford has not proffered admissible evidence to support that any
of the statutorily prescribed circumstances that justify vacating an arbitration award
occurred during the course of Stafford and BAART’s arbitration. See 9 U.S.C.
§ 10(a).
The district court properly granted BAART’s motion to confirm the award.
A district court “must grant” a motion to confirm an arbitration award “unless the
award is vacated, modified, or corrected.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. As there were no grounds
for vacating the award, the district court was required to confirm it.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --