Jenae S. Asire v. Carson City School District; Richard Stokes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENAE S. ASIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CARSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT;
RICHARD STOKES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16478
D.C. No.
3:20-cv-00039-RCJ-CLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Jenae S. Asire appeals the district court’s dismissal of her action against her
former employer, Carson City School District. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See
Circuit City Stores, Inc., v. Adams, 279 F.3d 889, 892 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).
* 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
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court properly held that the arbitration clause was valid and
enforceable. The clause complied with governing Nevada law by including,
among other things, a specific indication that the compelled party consented to the
agreement. NRS 597.995. Nothing about the clause was unconscionable, given
that it was four pages long, contained all capital letters noting that some rights are
foregone by agreeing to arbitration, and included evidence of assent from Asire.
See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Green, 96 P.3d 1159, 1162 (Nev. 2004) (holding that a
finding of unconscionability requires procedural as well as substantive
unconscionability), overruled on other grounds by Home Corp. v. Ballesteros, 415
P.3d 32 (Nev. 2018).
The district court also properly held that allegations of material breach do
not excuse arbitration. See Local Union No. 721, United Packinghouse, Food &
Allied Workers, AFL-CIO v. Needham Packing Co., 376 U.S. 247, 251–52 (1964)
(“Arbitration provisions, which themselves have not been repudiated, are meant to
survive breaches of contract.”)
Finally, the district court was correct to deny as moot Asire’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings. Because the court compelled arbitration, the pending
motion for judgment on the pleadings was necessarily moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --