Alejandro Alers, Jr., Pro Se; Hazel Alers, Pro Se v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, National Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO ALERS, JR., PRO SE;
HAZEL ALERS, PRO SE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-55325
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08934-FLA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: KELLY,*** M. SMITH, and FORREST, Circuit Judges
* 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).
*** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s order confirming an arbitration
award and dismissing their complaint with prejudice. We affirm for substantially
the same reasons given by the district court, which concluded that the arbitration
award was an enforceable final judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims and that
plaintiffs had failed to show fraud, corruption, or any other factor rendering the
award unsound pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). We also agree that plaintiffs may not
challenge the arbitration agreement itself because they initiated the arbitration
proceedings and indicated misgivings about the agreement only after the arbitrator
began ruling against them. See ECC Cap. Corp. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP,
215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 492, 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017); Reed v. Mut. Serv. Corp., 131 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 524, 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by Haworth v.
Superior Ct., 235 P.3d 152, 158-59 & n.6 (Cal. 2010).
Plaintiffs raise several new arguments on appeal, but we do not consider them
because they were not properly raised in the district court. See Armstrong v. Brown,
768 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --