Schneidmiller v. American Arbitration Association
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Because a petition for writ of prohibition is not the appropriate vehicle for raising petitioner's challenge and because he is a represented party defendant in a related case before this Court seeking confirmation of the arbitration award, this action is dismissed, without prejudice to any of petitioner's rights in Case No. 4:12CV1789 or under 9 U.S.C. Section 12. Judge Sara Lioi on 8/27/2012. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
GARY D. SCHNEIDMILLER,
CASE NO. 4:12CV1971
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff pro se Gary D. Schneidmiller filed this “Petition
for Writ of Prohibition” against the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), challenging
a June 20, 2012 arbitration award (the “Award”) rendered pursuant to an arbitration clause
in a contract to which he was a party. Mr. Schneidmiller apparently seeks an order vacating
A writ of prohibition “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy” and is available
only when a petitioner can demonstrate the right to it is “clear and indisputable.” In re
Vargas, 723 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1983). It is employed only “in exceptional circumstances
amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” Union Light, Heat and Power Co. v. United
States District Court, 588 F.2d 543, 544 (6th cir. 1978).
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is ever a basis for a district
court to issue a writ of prohibition against an arbitrator, this would not be such an instance.
The Award has already issued and the AAA has completed its task. There is no further
action by the AAA that this Court could now prohibit. Thus, given the most liberal
construction, the Petition does not set forth even an arguable claim for relief in prohibition.
This petition is, therefore, appropriately subject to summary dismissal. Apple v. Glenn, 183
F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999); see, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (citing
numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims
divest the district court of jurisdiction); see also, In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300
(6th Cir.1988) (recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial
Dismissal of the instant petition is appropriate for two additional reasons.
First, challenges to arbitration awards must be made under 9 U.S.C. § 12, which permits the
filing of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award so long as notice of such a
challenge is served within three months after the award was made. In this case, the original
arbitration award is dated June 20, 2012. See Petition, Doc. No. 1 ¶ 5. Therefore, the time
for a challenge under § 12 has not expired. Second, a challenge to the arbitration award
could also arguably be raised in Physicians Insurance Capital, LLC, et al. v. Praesidium
Alliance Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:12CV1789, wherein petitioner is a party defendant
to an action seeking confirmation of the arbitration award. In that action, also before this
Court, petitioner is represented by counsel who has sought and been granted leave, on behalf
of all the defendants, to answer the First Amended Complaint by September 30, 2012. (See,
Case No. 4:12CV1789, Doc. No. 15 and Non-document Order dated August 13, 2012.)
Accordingly, because a petition for writ of prohibition is not the appropriate
vehicle for raising petitioner’s challenge and because he is a represented party defendant in
a related case before this Court seeking confirmation of the arbitration award, this action is
DISMISSED, without prejudice to any of petitioner’s rights in Case No. 4:12CV1789 or
under 9 U.S.C. § 12.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 27, 2012
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?