King v. LVN Motors Incorporated et al

Filing 13

ORDER that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/16/11. (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

On May 4, 2011, the Court issued the following order:

17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, before the Court considers that motion, the Court will
consider whether it has jurisdiction over this case. See Belleville Catering Co.
v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, they can hear only
those cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to
adjudicate: namely, cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question,
or cases to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears
the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id.
In this case, Plaintiff states that jurisdiction is based on the Federal
Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 2) (“FAA”). Doc. 1 at 2. However, the FAA does
not create a basis for Federal subject matter jurisdiction by itself, or as a
Federal question. See Carter v. Health Net of Calif., Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 834
(9th Cir. 2004) (“It is well-established that even when a petition is brought
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a petitioner seeking to confirm or
vacate an arbitration award in federal court must establish an independent basis
for federal jurisdiction. Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15 n. 9 (1984)
(noting that ‘while the Federal Arbitration Act creates federal substantive law
requiring the parties to honor arbitration agreements, it does not create any
independent federal-question jurisdiction.’)”).
Because the FAA cannot be the basis for jurisdiction in this case,
IT IS ORDERED that by May 25, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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

2
3

Doc. 10.

4

On May 9, 2011, and on May 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

5

Plaintiff fails to state any particular basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. However,

6

Plaintiff again states that he is being compelled to arbitrate in accordance with the Federal

7

Arbitration Act. Doc. 12 at 2. As indicated in the previous order, the Federal Arbitration Act

8

does not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

9

Plaintiff goes on to allege that he and both Defendants are citizens of Arizona and that

10

the amount in controversy is approximately $31,000. Thus, there is no diversity jurisdiction.

11

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

12
13
14
15
16

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plead federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED this 16th day of May, 2011.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-