Damon Charles Williams v. Kelly Laimana; Best Western International, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAMON CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
KELLY LAIMANA; BEST WESTERN
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 21-55053
D.C. No. 8:20-cv-01110-DOC-ADS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Damon Charles Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in
his petition to confirm an arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and 9 U.S.C. § 16. We review de novo a district court’s decision to vacate
an arbitration award. Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607
* 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
FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-55053
F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly vacated the arbitration award because the record
showed by clear and convincing evidence that the award was procured by fraud.
See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1) (setting forth grounds on which a court may vacate an
arbitration award). Moreover, the fraud was not discoverable by due diligence
before or during the proceeding and was materially related to the submitted issue.
See Pac. & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co. v. United Transp. Union, 952 F.2d 1144,
1148 (9th Cir. 1991) (providing requirements for establishing fraud).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees as
a sanction against Williams or in its determination of the amount of the award. See
Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of
review and describing grounds for Rule 11 sanctions; a district court does not
abuse its discretion unless its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or
a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence); Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms,
Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The district court has wide discretion
in determining the appropriate sanction for a Rule 11 violation.”).
We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that the motion to vacate
was time-barred or filed in an improper venue.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-55053
Appellee Best Western International, Inc.’s request for judicial notice, set
forth in its answering brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --