In re: WAL-MART WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, CAROLYN BEASLEY BURTON; v. CLASS COUNSEL AND PARTY TO ARBITRATION and ARBITRATOR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WAL-MART WAGE AND HOUR
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION,
CAROLYN BEASLEY BURTON; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
CLASS COUNSEL AND PARTY TO
ARBITRATION and ARBITRATOR,
Appellees.
No. 11-17718
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00225-PMP-
PAL
MEMORANDUM*
In re: WAL-MART WAGE AND HOUR
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION,
CAROL POWELL LAPLANT,
Appellant,
v.
No. 11-17778
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00225-PMP-
PAL
FILED
DEC 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

CLASS COUNSEL AND PARTY TO
ARBITRATION and ARBITRATOR,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 8, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Carolyn Burton, Robert Mills, the Mills Law Firm, and Carol
LaPlant (collectively, the Burton Group) appeal from the district court’s
confirmation of an arbitration award allocating attorneys’ fees and denial of their
motion to vacate the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). In an opinion filed
contemporaneously with this memorandum disposition, we hold that parties may
not waive or eliminate judicial review of arbitration awards under § 10 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to proceed to
the merits of the Burton Group’s arguments concerning vacatur. Because the
parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat
only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.
“We ‘review the confirmation or vacation of an arbitration award like any
other district court decision . . . accepting findings of fact that are not clearly

-- 2 of 4 --

erroneous but deciding questions of law de novo.’” Coutee v. Barington Capital
Grp., L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Barnes v. Logan, 122
F.3d 820, 821 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The Burton Group has not demonstrated that any of the district court’s factual
conclusions are clearly erroneous, see Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S.
Department of Commerce, 672 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2012), nor has it shown
that the district court erred with respect to matters of law.
The district court correctly concluded that the arbitrator’s decision was not
procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1). The
district court also correctly concluded that the arbitrator was not evidently partial
or actually biased. See id. § 10(a)(2). As the district court found, the Salvas
mediation and checks were disclosed and did not evidence bias, the allegedly ex
parte communications were not ex parte, and the press comments did not show
actual bias. The arbitrator did not exceed his arbitral jurisdiction and did not issue
biased rulings. To the extent the arbitrator failed to disclose his role as arbitrator in
the Smokeless Tobacco cases, it was a “trivial” relationship without the type of
direct financial connections that raise concern and need not have been disclosed.
See Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145, 150 (1968)
(White, J., concurring); New Regency Prods., Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc.,
3

-- 3 of 4 --

501 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court correctly concluded that
the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct, and that even if he did, the Burton
Group did not establish that the alleged misconduct prejudiced them. See 9 U.S.C.
§ 10(a)(3). Finally, the district court correctly concluded that the arbitrator did not
exceed his powers, and that the arbitration award did not reflect a manifest
disregard for law. See id. § 10(a)(4); Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
635 F.3d 401, 414 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the district court properly
confirmed the arbitration award and denied the Burton Group’s motion to vacate.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --