Opinion
21-35146
01-26-2022
RICHARD LEE GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DINH HOANG PHUONG, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 19, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:20-mc-00011-TMB
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Richard Lee Green appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action seeking to enforce an arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 201. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's abstention determination under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Green's action as barred under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where "the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings." ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 759 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases); see also Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 79 (2013) (identifying the characteristics of civil enforcement actions subject to the Younger abstention doctrine).
Even assuming that the New York Convention of 1958 applies, it does not require that Green's action to enforce an international arbitration award be brought in federal court, especially where, as here, the state court had already conducted trial proceedings before Green raised the issue of arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 205 ("Where the subject matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention, the defendant or the defendants may, at any time before the trial thereof, remove such action or proceeding to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the action or proceeding is pending." (emphasis added)).
We reject as without merit Green's contentions that the arbitration award constituted a res judicata determination and that the district court improperly interfered with the docket records.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Green's motion to accept addendums (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).