Rajaee v. Callahan

1
25-cv-1164-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ashkan RAJAEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Rebecca CALLAHAN,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-1164-AGS-SBC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS (ECF 6)
Displeased with an arbitrator’s ruling against him, the self-represented plaintiff here
brought a civil-rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The arbitrator now moves to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ashkan Rajaee and “non-party Tyler Davis” entered a joint “operating
agreement of TopDevz, LLC” (ECF 1, at 3), which provides that arbitration is “the
exclusive dispute resolution process” between the members (ECF 1-2, at 31). Rajaee
commenced arbitration against Davis, and defendant Rebecca Callahan was appointed as
the arbitrator. (See id. at 2–4.) After extensive arbitration, and “over Rajaee’s objections to
jurisdiction, 	Callahan . . . decree[d] 	dissolution 	of 	TopDevz 	under 	[California
Corporations Code] § 17707.03.” (Id. at 8.) Rajaee moved to vacate the decision, but the
state court denied the motion and “confirm[ed] Callahan’s final arbitration determination.”
(Id. at 14; see also ECF 1-5; ECF 1-6.)
Rajaee then sued Callahan here, alleging a single claim: that Callahan’s arbitral
award “deliberately and willfully deprived [Rajaee of] his property and liberty interests in
TopDevz” without “due process.” (ECF 1, at 2, 9, 14, 17.)
DISCUSSION
Callahan moves to dismiss on multiple grounds, but this Court need only address
one: the “under color of state law” requirement. A “§ 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate a
deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the
defendant acted under color of state law.” Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.
Case 3:25-cv-01164-AGS-SBC Document 15 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
25-cv-1164-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2003). “[P]rivate parties” like defendant Callahan “are not generally acting under color of
state law.” See Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991).
Courts analyzing the “under color of state law” element in the context of arbitrators
have come to the same conclusion: “The arbitration involved here was private, not state,
action; it was conducted pursuant to contract by a private arbitrator.” Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Air Fla. Sys., Inc., 822 F.2d 833, 842 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987). The “[p]rivate actions
of an arbitrator are not undertaken under color of state law [even though] the arbitration
has been conducted pursuant to a state statute or the arbitrator’s award is enforced by a
state court.” McDaniels v. City of Philadelphia, 56 F. Supp. 2d 578, 580 (E.D. Pa. 1999);
see also Narula v. Orange Cnty. Super. Ct., No. 8:19-cv-00133-DSF-JC, 2020 WL
5289926, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2020) (collecting cases and holding arbitrators’ “private
conduct 	cannot 	form 	the 	basis 	for 	a 	viable 	Section 	1983 	claim”), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. 8:19-cv-00133-DSF-JC, 2020 WL 5289856 (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 1, 2020).
Because Callahan was not acting under color of state law, this civil-rights suit is
meritless and must be dismissed.1
CONCLUSION
The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Rajaee’s single-claim complaint is dismissed
without leave to amend. See Travis v. Couture, 385 F. App’x 615, 615 (9th Cir. 2010)
(ruling that “the district court acted within its discretion by dismissing [the] complaint
without leave to amend” when the plaintiff “failed to explain how the defendants acted
under color of state law or conspired to deprive him of his civil rights”); Narula v. Orange
Cnty. Sup. Ct., No. 21-55974, 2022 WL 17500721, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (affirming
1 In addition, since plaintiff’s claim arises directly from an arbitrator’s decisional
acts, it is foreclosed by arbitrator immunity. See Narula v. Orange Cnty. Sup. Ct., No. 21-
55974, 2022 WL 17500721, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022) (affirming dismissal against
arbitrator as “barred by arbitral immunity”).
Case 3:25-cv-01164-AGS-SBC Document 15 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
25-cv-1164-AGS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“[d]ismissal with prejudice” of § 1983 claims against an arbitrator as “futile” because the
arbitrator “was not acting under color of state law”). The requests for judicial notice
(ECF 6-1; ECF 7-1) are “den[ied] as irrelevant.” See Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113,
1120 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008). The Clerk is directed to close this case and issue a judgment.
Dated: March 15, 2026
___________________________
Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01164-AGS-SBC Document 15 Filed 03/15/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3