Edward James Artz, as Trustee of The Edward James Artz Trust v. ROYCE T. FLORA, Maricopa County Treasurer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD JAMES ARTZ, as Trustee of
The Edward James Artz Trust,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROYCE T. FLORA, Maricopa County
Treasurer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16321
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01195-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Edward James Artz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action seeking to compel arbitration. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n,
* 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
JAN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16321
718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (denial of motion to compel arbitration);
Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Artz’s action because Artz failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Kilgore, 718 F.3d at 1058
(Federal Arbitration Act mandates that the district court “shall direct the parties to
proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been
signed,” and the district court must determine “whether a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists” (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).
We reject as without merit Artz’s contentions that the district court violated
his constitutional rights, or otherwise acted with impropriety or gave the
appearance of impropriety in its conduct.
Artz’s “motion to obtain sealed document” (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as
unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (record on appeal includes original papers
and exhibits filed in the district court); 9th Cir. R. 30-1.3 (pro se appellant need not
file excerpts of record).
///

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16321
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --