Monica Ball v. Stylecraft Homes, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00246-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999329203]. [13-1946]

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/03/2014

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1946

MONICA L. BALL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STYLECRAFT HOMES, LLC; RICHARD KUHN; JOSHUA CREEL; JOHN
RICE; RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY COMPANY, LLC; HENRICO COUNTY;
GREGORY H. REVELS, Henrico County Building Official;
RICHARD MOORE, Henrico County Building Official; CHARLES
JONES, Henrico County Building Official; CARL RANSONE,
Henrico County Building Official; JOSEPH RANSONE, Henrico
County Building Official; GRAHAM HENDERSON; CHARLES TONEY;
JOHN DOE (INSPECTORS), in their Official and Individual
capacities jointly and severally,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00246-REP)

Submitted:

March 26, 2014

Decided:

April 3, 2014

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerrod M. Smith, JERROD MYRON SMITH & ASSOCIATES, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Charles A. Gavin, CAWTHORN, DESKEVICH
& GAVIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Benjamin A. Thorp, Henrico,
Virginia; John Owen, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN,

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/03/2014

Pg: 2 of 7

Richmond, Virginia; Edward J. Baines, Carolyn Due, SAUL EWING,
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/03/2014

Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Monica Ball appeals the district court order denying
her

motion

Federal

to

vacate

Arbitration

an

Act

arbitration
(“FAA”),

dismissing her civil complaint.
district
failed

court’s

to

dispositive

establish

matter jurisdiction.

a

9

award

U.S.C.

the

(2012),

§ 10

to

and

On appeal, Ball challenges the
conclusion

basis

pursuant

for

that

exercising

her

pleadings

federal

subject

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de
novo.

In

re

Kirkland,

600

F.3d

310,

314

(4th

Cir.

2013).

Federal jurisdiction may lie either on the basis of diversity of
citizenship,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1332

(2012),

or

federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012).

the

existence

of

a

A federal court may

exercise federal question jurisdiction over an action “arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Id.
a

“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, . . .

suit

arises

under

federal

law

only

when

the

plaintiff’s

statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon
federal law.”

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009)

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

Thus, to

determine whether an action arises under the laws of the United
States, a court must examine the operative pleading to “discern
whether federal or state law creates the cause of action” and,
if

the

claim

is

not

created

by
3

federal

law,

whether

“the

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/03/2014

Pg: 4 of 7

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of
a substantial question of federal law.”
402

F.3d

430,

omitted).

442

(4th

Cir.

2005)

Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.,

(internal

quotation

marks

To support federal jurisdiction, the federal question

must be substantial, not frivolous or pretextual.

Lovern v.

Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654-55 (4th Cir. 1999).
Under the FAA, a party to an arbitration may petition
the district court to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration
award,

regardless

of

whether

an

initial

arbitration was brought in federal court.
11

(2012).

With

regard

to

suit

to

compel

See 9 U.S.C. §§ 10,

“jurisdiction

over

controversies

touching arbitration,” the FAA “is something of an anomaly,” as
“[i]t bestows no federal jurisdiction but rather requires for
access to a federal forum an independent jurisdictional basis
over the parties’ dispute.”
quotation

marks

and

Vaden, 556 U.S. at 59 (internal

alterations

omitted).

Where

the

action

otherwise satisfies a court’s jurisdictional requirements, the
FAA

“makes

enforceable,’

contracts
so

long

to
as

arbitrate
their

‘valid,

subject

irrevocable,

involves

and

‘commerce.’

. . . whether enforcement be sought in state court or federal.”
Hall

St.

Assocs.,

L.L.C. v.

Mattel,

(2008) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2012)).

Inc.,

552

U.S.

576,

582

Thus, whether the dispute

demonstrates a nexus to commerce sufficient to fall within the
scope of the FAA is a separate inquiry from the existence of
4

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

Filed: 04/03/2014

Pg: 5 of 7

either diversity of citizenship or a federal question adequate
to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.
On
court’s

appeal,

conclusion

Ball
that

does
she

not

challenge

failed

to

the

district

establish

federal

jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and has therefore
abandoned appellate review of this issue.

See United States v.

Hudson, 673 F.3d 263, 268 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that issues
not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned).

Moreover,

Ball’s own pleadings clearly establish that the parties are not
completely

diverse,

as

required

to

confer

diversity

jurisdiction.
Ball

primarily

argues

that

she

has

invoked

federal

question jurisdiction based on the nexus between her allegations
and interstate commerce.

Because Ball did not fairly raise this

argument in her responsive pleadings in the district court, it
is not properly before us.

See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that issues raised for
first time on appeal generally will not be considered).

In any

event, Ball’s attempt to establish a federal question based on a
vague

connection

to

unavailing.

Ball

commerce

invoke

question”

to

conflates

requirement

jurisdiction.

“interstate

the

FAA

the

requirement

with

necessary

commerce”

to

the

is

of

a

entirely
nexus

independent

establish

with

“federal

subject

matter

Thus, the authority on which she relies is wholly
5

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

inapposite

Filed: 04/03/2014

to

the

Pg: 6 of 7

existence

of

federal

subject

matter

jurisdiction in her case.
In her pleadings filed in the district court, 1 Ball
made no attempt to assert a federal claim for relief.

Nor did

she assert facts that would give rise to a substantive issue of
federal

law.

Review

of

Ball’s

claims

and

challenge

to

the

arbitrator’s award would not require the district court to apply
or analyze the Commerce Clause.

Simply put, Ball’s complaint

asserted only state-law claims for relief, notwithstanding any
vague connection the underlying fact pattern may have to federal
regulations or to interstate commerce. 2
court

correctly

concluded

that

it

Therefore, the district
lacked

subject

matter

jurisdiction and properly dismissed the action.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

1

As the district court noted, “[t]he FAA sets forth the
sole method to challenge an arbitration award—by serving a
motion to vacate . . . —and does not permit a party to initiate
a challenge to an arbitration award by filing a complaint.” ANR
Coal Co. v. Cogentrix of N.C., Inc., 173 F.3d 493, 496 n.1 (4th
Cir. 1999) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
2

Insofar as Ball attempts to raise a due process argument
on appeal, that argument was not raised in the district court
and is not properly before us. See Muth, 1 F.3d at 250.

6

Appeal: 13-1946

Doc: 40

contentions

are

Filed: 04/03/2014

adequately

Pg: 7 of 7

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

7