Micro Sales, Inc. v. Advantech Corporation

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed for want ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. Status hearing date of 3/17/15 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 3/5/2015. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICRO SALES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANTECH CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14 C 997
Judge Jorge L. Alonso

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Micro Sales, Inc., filed its complaint in this action on February 12, 2014. The
complaint sought to compel defendant, Advantech Corporation, to arbitrate pursuant to an
arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. The complaint also sought the appointment of an
arbitrator to conduct the arbitration in Illnois. Advantech agreed to arbitrate in Chicago, and the
parties filed an agreed motion for appointment of an arbitrator to conduct the arbitration. On
April 10, 2014, Judge Ellis entered an order granting the parties’ motion and appointing Retired
Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan to conduct a binding arbitration pursuant to the contract’s
arbitration provision.
The case was reassigned to this Court on January 16, 2015. At this Court’s initial status
hearing on February 10, 2015, the Court asked plaintiff’s counsel to identify the pending
controversy. Counsel stated that the plaintiff may ask the Court to confirm an arbitration award
that may be issued at some future date. The Court then gave plaintiff leave to file a brief citing
authority for its position that the Court continues to have subject-matter jurisdiction over this
matter, i.e., that there is still a case or controversy.

Plaintiff filed its memorandum of law on March 3, 2015. Plaintiff contends that “this
Court should keep this matter open for the purpose of [e]nsuring that the arbitration agreement is
completely enforced consistent with the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act.” (Pl.’s Mem. 2.)
It also raises the possibility that one of the parties might move to confirm, modify, or vacate any
eventual arbitration award, contends that the parties would bear “a duplicative and unnecessary
burden” should they be required to file a new action in order to do so, and asserts that the “case
law relating to ‘case or controversy’ does not, and should not, be applied to matters involving the
enforceability of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.” (Id. 3.)
“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing
cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). This case-orcontroversy requirement “subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings.” Id. To
sustain this Court’s jurisdiction, it is not enough that a dispute was present when the case was
filed; the parties must continue to have a personal stake in the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit.
See id. at 477-78. There is no case or controversy, and a suit therefore becomes moot, “when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Chafin v. Chafin, --- U.S. ----, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The issue of the enforceability of an arbitration award is not before the Court; indeed, the
parties’ arbitration is ongoing. Plaintiff cites no authority for its position that the Court should
continue to keep this case open for the parties’ convenience in the event that one of them seeks
to bring a hypothetical motion to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitration award that has not yet
been issued. Plaintiff has received all of the relief it sought in the complaint; there is nothing left
to adjudicate. Because there is no remaining case or controversy, the Court no longer has
2

subject-matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. “If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also
Stotts v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 991 (7th Cir. 2000) (“When a case is moot, it
must be dismissed as non-justiciable.”). Accordingly, this action is dismissed for want of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED:

March 5, 2015

__________________________________
HON. JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge

3