Chia v. Fidelity Brokerage Services

Full title: Samuel G. CHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 21, 2001

3 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

3 Fed.Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2001) Samuel G. CHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-17138. D.C. No. CV-99-00027-VRW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 21, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001 ¹.

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Investor alleged that brokerage service defrauded him and breached its fiduciary duty in relation to a bad investment. A National Association of Securities Dealers' (NASD) arbitration dismissed investor's claim as time-barred and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, J., denied investor's motion to vacate arbitration panel's decision. Investor appealed. The Court of Appeals held that investor, who had actual or constructive knowledge of his claim, was required to file claim within six-year statute of limitations.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Page 643.

Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Samuel G. Chia appeals pro se the district court's judgment declining to vacate the National Association of Securities Dealers' arbitration decision that dismissed as time-barred his claim alleging that Fidelity Brokerage Services defrauded him and breached its fiduciary duty in relation to a bad investment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision confirming an arbitration decision and denying vacatur. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 933 F.2d 1481, 1485 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

Because Chia had actual or constructive knowledge of his claim in September 1992, his claim is time-barred. See Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., 649 F.2d 641, 644-45 (9th Cir.1980). Chia's contentions regarding tolling, that a six-year statute of limitations applies, or that the arbitrators and district court exceeded their power lack merit.

We deny Fidelity's request to strike portions of the record.

AFFIRMED.