Stebbins v. NET-ARB, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety. Further the instant Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Paul K. Holmes, III on May 3, 2011. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
DAVID STEBBINS

PLAINTIFF

v.

Case No. 3:11-CV-03025

NET-ARB, INC.

DEFENDANT
O R D E R

On this 3rd day of May 2011, there comes on for consideration
the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 4) filed in this case on April
14, 2011, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States
Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas.

Also before the

Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 5).
The

court

has

reviewed

this

case

and,

being

well

and

sufficiently advised, finds as follows: Plaintiff’s objections
offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff Stebbins objects to the recommendation
that his Complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Stebbins
does not challenge the conclusion that the Court lacks diversity
jurisdiction. Instead, Stebbins argues that this Court has federal
question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
§ 2, (“FAA”). However, as the report and recommendation correctly
points out, the FAA “does not itself bestow jurisdiction; [i]nstead
there must be an independent jurisdictional base.” (Doc. 4 at page
2)(citing Hall St. Assocs, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576
(2008)). Under the FAA, a federal district court has jurisdiction
to order arbitration in cases which, save for the arbitration

agreement, it would otherwise have jurisdiction over the underlying
dispute. 9 U.S.C. § 4.
First, Stebbins does not appear to be seeking enforcement of
an arbitration clause under the FAA. Instead, his claims seem to
arise out of breach of contract. Second, Stebbins has alleged no
facts upon which this Court could establish jurisdiction over the
underlying dispute, such that it could exercise jurisdiction over
any claims brought under the FAA. Specifically, Stebbins has not
properly addressed the citizenship of Defendant nor has Stebbins
alleged damages sufficient to meet the threshold requirement for
amount in controversy. The Court cannot and does not have federal
question jurisdiction based on the FAA alone. No other basis for
jurisdiction in this Court exists. Therefore, the Report and
Recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
Accordingly,

for

the

reasons

stated

herein

and

in

the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the instant Complaint
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Any and all pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May 2011.

/s/ Paul K. Holmes, III
Paul K. Holmes, III
United States District Judge