Chris Dittenhafer v. Citigroup, also known, as Citibank

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision* *
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS DITTENHAFER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITIGROUP, also known, as Citibank,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16909
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-01779-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Chris Dittenhafer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting
defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing his action alleging
employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Americans with
FILED
JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16909 2
Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.
2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly compelled arbitration of Dittenhafer’s claims
under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) and California law because the
arbitration policy in defendant’s employee handbook covered Dittenhafer’s
statutory employment discrimination claims and was not substantively
unconscionable. See id. (federal court’s role under the FAA is limited to
determining whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and whether it
encompasses the dispute at issue); see also AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
131 S. Ct. 1740, 1746 (2011) (California law requires both procedural and
substantive unconscionability for a court to invalidate an arbitration clause).
Dittenhafer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --