
    Arlene D. ROWLAND, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; et al., Respondents.
    No. 10-70428.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Arlene D. Rowland, Ventura, CA, pro se.
    Janet R. Dunlop, Esquire, Rachel Goldberg, Gregory Jacobs, Steven J. Mandel, Esquire, Joseph M. Woodward, Esquire, Paul L. Frieden, Counsel, LABRU.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, Christopher B. Wilkinson, Esquire, DOL-U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Rowland's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arlene D. Rowland petitions pro se for review of the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) order dismissing her whistle-blower complaint under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4). We review the ARB’s decision .pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and will reverse only if the decision is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Coppinger-Martin v. Solis, 627 F.3d 745, 748 (9th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition.

The ARB did not err by dismissing Rowland’s complaint because Rowland failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Prudential Equity Group, LLC’s filing of a lawsuit to confirm an arbitration award constituted an adverse action under the SOX. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a) (SOX whistle-blower provision); Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.2009) (elements of prima facie case under SOX whistle-blower provision).

Rowland’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Rowland’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary because respondents have included the necessary parts of the administrative record in the excerpts of record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publi-' cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     