Broumand v. Joseph et al

Filing 33

ORDER: Since, with the exception of the fourth question, which petitioner briefly addressed, these questions have not been the subject of any briefing, the Court orders supplemental briefing on the following schedule: opening briefs due January 15, 2 021, response briefs due January 22, 2021. In addition, the Court will hear telephonic oral argument on the motions on January 27, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. (Brief due by 1/15/2021. Responses to Brief due by 1/22/2021. Telephone Conference set for 1/27/2021 at 04:00 PM before Judge Jed S. Rakoff.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/7/2021) (jwh)

Case 1:20-cv-09137-JSR Document 33 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------- x
:
STAFFORD BROUMAND, M.D.,
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
-v:
:
JEREMY JOSEPH, PATRICIA HAWKINS,
SEAN GABRIEL, LEIGH SLAUGHTER, and :
:
JENNIFER A. GREENHALL,
:
:
Respondents.
----------------------------------- x

20-cv-9137 (JSR)
ORDER

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner

Stafford

Broumand

is

a

party

to

an

ongoing

arbitration in New York. The arbitrator in that dispute issued
subpoenas directing respondents Jeremy Joseph and Sean Gabriel,
residents of California and Virginia, respectively, to appear at
an evidentiary hearing in Manhattan to
documents.

When

respondents

chose

provide testimony and

to

ignore

those

arbitral

subpoenas, petitioner filed the instant petition pursuant to 9
U.S.C. § 7 to compel their compliance. The arbitration hearing is
set to begin on February 1, 2021. Respondents now move to dismiss
the

petition

jurisdiction

on
over

the

grounds

them

and

that
that

this
the

Court

arbitral

lacks

personal

subpoenas

are

otherwise invalid.
Although the Court had originally thought it could resolve

Case 1:20-cv-09137-JSR Document 33 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 3

this matter by January 8, 2021, upon review of the briefs the Court
finds that further questions not briefed by the parties need to be
addressed. These questions are:
1. Whether, as the Eleventh Circuit recently held, Section
7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), in light of
the

2013

amendments

to

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure, now permits nationwide service of process.
See Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. CIGNA Healthcare,
Inc., 939 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
2. If so, whether, in a proceeding to enforce an arbitral
subpoena pursuant to Section 7 of the FAA, the relevant
contacts

for

determining

personal

jurisdiction

are

contacts with anywhere in the United States, even where,
as here, the case arises not under federal question but
diversity jurisdiction. Cf. Gucci Am. v. Li, 768 F.3d
122, 142 n.21 (2d Cir. 2014).
3. Whether the geographical limits found in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45(c) apply not only to subpoenas in
civil litigation but also to arbitral subpoenas issued
under Section 7 of the FAA; and, if so, whether, in light
of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Wash. Nat’l
Ins. Co. v. OBEX Grp. LLC, 958 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2020),
a district court has an obligation or the power under
-2-

Case 1:20-cv-09137-JSR Document 33 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 3

Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) to quash or modify an arbitral
subpoena that requires a person to comply beyond the
geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c).
4. If so, whether an arbitral subpoena issued under Section
7 of the FAA that compels a non-party to appear not inperson but by videoconference at an evidentiary hearing
to provide testimony and produce documents complies with
the Second Circuit’s rule that an arbitral subpoena may
compel the production of documents from a non-party “so
long as that person is called as a witness at a hearing.”
Life Receivables Tr. v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd's of
London, 549 F.3d 210, 218 (2d Cir. 2008).
Since, with the exception of

the fourth question, which

petitioner briefly addressed, these questions have not been the
subject of any briefing, the Court orders supplemental briefing on
the following schedule:

opening briefs due January 15, 2021,

response briefs due January 22, 2021. In addition, the Court will
hear telephonic oral argument on the motions on January 27, 2021,
at 4:00 p.m.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, NY
January 7, 2021

-3-