gno.law

American Airlines, Inc. v. Robert Mawhinney

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 19-55566 · 2020-06-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Barry T. Moskowitz (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., No. 19-55566 Petitioner-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00731-BTM- WVG v. ROBERT STEVEN MAWHINNEY, MEMORANDUM* Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Robert Steven Mawhinney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting American Airlines, Inc.’s petition to confirm an arbitration award. 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). We affirm.

* 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). In his opening brief, Mawhinney challenges only the propriety of the decision to compel arbitration of his claim for whistleblowing retaliation, brought under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”), 49 U.S.C. § 42121. However, the order compelling arbitration of his AIR21 claim has already been affirmed in American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-55566

Cites, in this corpus