D.A.R.E. NEW JERSEY, INC., a New Jersey nonprofit corporation v. D.a.r.e. America, a California not-for- profit corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D.A.R.E. NEW JERSEY, INC., a New
Jersey nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D.A.R.E. AMERICA, a California not-for-
profit corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-55512
D.C. No.
2:12-cv-09805-SJO-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
D.A.R.E. New Jersey, Inc., appeals the district court’s confirmation of an
arbitration award to D.A.R.E. America. We review de novo the district court’s
* 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
JAN 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
confirmation of an arbitration award. Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs.,
553 F.3d 1277, 1284 (9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
The arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by refusing to allow
D.A.R.E. New Jersey to arbitrate its New Jersey Franchise Practices Act claim.
D.A.R.E. New Jersey cites no authority to support the proposition that an arbitrator
must allow a party to amend an arbitration demand to include a new claim on the
eve of the arbitration hearing. “To vacate an arbitration award on this ground, [i]t
must be clear from the record that the arbitrator[] recognized the applicable law
and then ignored it.” Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607
F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
“The scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction extends to issues not only
explicitly raised by the parties, but all issues implicit within” the arbitration
demand. Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 733 (9th Cir.
2006). An arbitrator’s interpretation of the scope of her powers is entitled to great
deference. Id. As the arbitrator found, the determination that D.A.R.E. New
Jersey materially breached the charter agreement was necessary to resolve the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
breach of contract claim.
Finally, even where we have vacated an arbitration award on public policy
grounds, we have concluded (1) that an explicit, well defined, and dominant public
policy exists, and (2) that the policy specifically militates against the relief ordered by
the arbitration. Matthews v. Nat. Football League Mgt. Council, 688 F.3d 1107, 1111
(9th Cir. 2012). D.A.R.E. New Jersey has not identified an explicit public policy that
militates against the relief ordered by the arbitration here.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --