King v. LVN Motors Incorporated et al

Filing 10

ORDER - that by May 25, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint alleging a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/4/11. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LVN Motors, Inc.; Van Tuyl Group, Inc.,)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Ted King,

No. CV 11-733-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

17

However, before the Court considers that motion, the Court will consider whether it has

18

jurisdiction over this case. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C.,

19

350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003).

20

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, they can hear only those cases

21

that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases

22

involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is

23

a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party

24

asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id.

25

In this case, Plaintiff states that jurisdiction is based on the Federal Arbitration Act

26

(9 U.S.C. § 2) (“FAA”). Doc. 1 at 2. However, the FAA does not create a basis for Federal

27

subject matter jurisdiction by itself, or as a Federal question. See Carter v. Health Net of

28

Calif., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well-established that even when a

1

petition is brought under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a petitioner seeking to confirm

2

or vacate an arbitration award in federal court must establish an independent basis for federal

3

jurisdiction. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15 n. 9 (1984) (noting that ‘while the

4

Federal Arbitration Act creates federal substantive law requiring the parties to honor

5

arbitration agreements, it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction.’)”).

6

Because the FAA cannot be the basis for jurisdiction in this case,

7

IT IS ORDERED that by May 25, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

8

alleging a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed, without

9

prejudice.

10

DATED this 4th day of May, 2011.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-