
    Ferial Karen ARDALAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MACY’S WEST; Marisela Zambrano, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Decided May 30, 2014.
    Ferial Karen Ardalan, Pacific Grove, CA, pro se.
    Douglas M. Egbert, Esquire, Robert J. Schnack, Esquire, Jackson Lewis LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, see Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2), and, therefore, denies Ardalan's request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ferial Karen Ardalan appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her petition to vacate an arbitration award in her employment action alleging wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and discrimination claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Arda-laris petition because Ardalan failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award can be vacated under section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. See id. (setting forth narrow grounds on which courts may vacate an arbitration award, limited to fraud in the procurement of the award, bias or corruption on the part of the arbitrator, misconduct in refusing to hear evidence, abuse of power, and manifest disregard of the law, and explaining that “mere allegations of error are insufficient” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 671, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) (party seeking to vacate an arbitral award “must clear a high hurdle,” which is not satisfied even by a showing that the arbitrator committed “a serious error”).

Ardalan’s contentions that the district court ignored material evidence and relied on distorted facts, and that defendants omitted or misreported material information and engaged in other improprieties, are rejected as unpersuasive.

Ardalan’s request for an order of investigation and inquiry, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     