IWAPI, Inc. v. MShift, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/7/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 8 12 13 14 15 No. C 13-80131 RS IWAPI, INC., Movant/Plaintiff, v. MSHIFT, INC., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 16 17 Respondent/Defendant. ____________________________________/ 18 19 IWAPI, Inc. initiated this miscellaneous matter to confirm an arbitration award entered in the 20 International Court of Arbitration. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), IWAPI’s motion to confirm 21 the arbitration award is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for 22 August 15, 2013 is vacated. The motion is denied, on grounds that the Court lacks subject matter 23 jurisdiction over this matter. IWAPI contends there is diversity jurisdiction, but it expressly alleges 24 that it and MShift, Inc. are both Delaware corporations. That one of the entities maintains its 25 principal place of business in California and the other in Colorado does not create diversity. See 28 26 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state 27 by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of 28 1 business . . . .”(emphasis added).); Bank of Calif. Nat’l Ass’n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 2 489, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1972). IWAPI’s further argument that the parties “contractually agreed” to litigate this matter in 3 4 either state or federal court is unavailing. It is a fundamental and well-settled principle that parties 5 cannot create subject matter jurisdiction by consent. See Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 6 (1934) (“lack of federal jurisdiction cannot be waived or be overcome by an agreement of the 7 parties.”).1 The Clerk shall close this file. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: 8/7/13 RICHARD SEEBORG 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 Perhaps in recognition of this principle, the contractual language to which IWAPI points does not purport to convey jurisdiction on the federal courts. Rather, the parties merely agreed, as they have power to do, that venue would be proper in state or federal court in Santa Clara County, and that a motion to confirm the arbitration award could be confirmed “in any court having jurisdiction thereof.” 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?