Ogden v. CDI Corporation, 2:20-cv-01490

Ogden worked for Digital Intelligence Systems LLC (DISYS) from 2013 until his involuntary termination in 2015 and had signed an Employee Arbitration Agreement.
After DISYS accepted a 2016 settlement demand, Ogden alleges he received only 79.5% of the agreed take‑home amount and that DISYS refused to pay its share of mandatory arbitration filing fees.
Ogden initiated the final (third) phase of the parties’ arbitration process and, after alleged noncompliance, filed a pro se federal complaint seeking an order compelling DISYS to resume and complete the arbitration process; he later filed an amended complaint naming DISYS.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal with prejudice and denial of in forma pauperis (IFP) as moot. Ogden filed objections and a motion to amend.
The district court reviewed de novo Ogden’s objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, dismissed the amended complaint (the judgment orders dismissal with prejudice), denied IFP as moot, denied the motion to amend as moot, and closed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / preclusion (Rooker‑Feldman)	Ogden contends the FAA governs and the court should only assess validity/scope of arbitration agreement; amendment would cure jurisdictional defects.	The matter was already litigated and decided in state court; federal review would be a forbidden de facto appeal.	Court held it lacks jurisdiction under Rooker‑Feldman and adopted R&R; dismissed the action (judgment dismisses with prejudice).
Service / appearance	Ogden says he filed a signed certificate of service with the amended complaint.	Magistrate found DISYS had not been properly served nor appeared.	Court adopted R&R findings regarding service issues and procedural deficiencies.
Scope of relief / failure to state a claim (arbitration enforcement)	Ogden says he sought only a judicial determination that the arbitration agreement is valid and that arbitration proceed, not to litigate merits.	R&R found the complaint did not present a cognizable federal claim and amendment would not cure jurisdictional bar.	Court agreed amendment would not remedy jurisdictional defect; motion to amend denied as moot.
In forma pauperis / procedural status	Ogden asserts prior state‑court IFP granted and his finances remain poor.	Court treated IFP application as moot if case dismissed.	IFP application denied as moot.

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for district court review of magistrate judge recommendations).
Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1983) (procedural guidance on de novo review of magistrate recommendations).
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining Rooker‑Feldman prohibits federal district review of state court judgments).