MEMORANDUM **

Gloria Villegas appeals the district court’s denial of her requests for vacatur of an arbitration award and for injunctive relief. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*464 I

Villegas contends that, under Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2013), the arbitrator’s dismissal of her claim for a “public injunction” allowed the district court to consider such claim on the merits as though it had never been referred to arbitration.

Here, the arbitrator did not determine that he “lacks the authority to issue the requested injunction.” See id. at 937. He issued a “final Award in full and final settlement of the merits of all claims and defenses presented in this arbitration.” (emphasis added). In the award, he determined that Villegas would “take nothing on her claims asserted in this arbitration proceeding.” Villegas had presented her request for a public injunction in her statement of claim, and in the briefs expressly considered by the arbitrator in making his award.

Thus, the award, on its face, denied her request for injunctive relief on the merits and did not determine that the arbitrator lacked authority to issue such relief. 1 As a result, Ferguson does not provide a basis for the district court to grant any relief.

II

U.S. Bank contends that Villegas has waived all arguments other than her argument based on Ferguson because she failed to argue any other issues specifically and distinctly in her opening brief. We agree. See Christian Legal Soc’y v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9) (requiring “short conclusion stating the precise relief sought”).

AFFIRMED.