Kevin F. Jackson v. APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION; KEITH DUPEN, Managing Director Human Resources

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN F. JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION;
KEITH DUPEN, Managing Director Human
Resources,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16673
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-06007-VKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Virginia K. DeMarchi, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 10, 2023***
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kevin F. Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
action alleging federal discrimination and retaliation claims against his former
* 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).
FILED
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16673
employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Johnson v. Gruma Corp., 614 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2010) (confirmation of
arbitration award); Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126,
1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (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
Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing
unconscionability defense to arbitration agreement under California law).
The district court properly confirmed the arbitration awards because Jackson
did not demonstrate any ground for vacating, modifying, or correcting the interim
award of summary disposition or the final award of attorney’s fees and costs. See
9 U.S.C. §§ 9-11; Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 663-64 (9th Cir.
2012) (establishing procedure for confirmation of arbitration awards, and grounds
for vacating, modifying, or correcting such awards).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16673
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Defendants’ motion to strike Jackson’s non-record documents and opening
brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --