Stebbins v. Microsoft Corp., 053013 FED9, 12-35082

Docket Nº:12-35082
Party Name:DAVID ANTHONY STEBBINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 30, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

DAVID ANTHONY STEBBINS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-35082

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 30, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 14, 2013 [*]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01362-JCC

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [**]

David Anthony Stebbins appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action to enforce an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stebbins's action because Stebbins's unilateral amendments to an existing contract with Microsoft Corporation did not give rise to a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. See First Options v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995) (state law principles of contract formation generally govern the determination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter); Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 94 P.3d 945, 949 (Wash. 2004) (under Washington state law, "the parties must objectively manifest their mutual assent" to form a contract).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Stebbins failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (discussing grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

Stebbins's contentions regarding defendant's alleged control over the district court are unpersuasive.

We do not address arguments allegedly incorporated by reference on appeal. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (arguments not expressly discussed in the opening brief are deemed waived).

Stebbins's motion to file a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP