Elder v. Carpenter et al

Filing 2

ORDER Regarding ECF No. 1 The Court finds that it lacks either diversity or federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Motion. This action is therefore DISMISSED sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 7/1/2020. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TRISHA KATHLEEN ELDER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:20-mc-19
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

CARLA CARPENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Trisha Kathleen Elder’s
Motion/Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. (ECF No. 1). It appears that Plaintiff seeks this
Court’s enforcement of an arbitration award that she purportedly obtained against the Ohio
Department of Jobs and Family Services (“ODJFS”). (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; however, that statute governs actions
between parties of diverse citizenship, and Plaintiff’s Motion states that “this dispute is between
citizens of the same state.” (Mot. 2, ECF No. 1). The diversity jurisdiction requirements of
§ 1332 are therefore not met.
Further, the Court can discern no basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s Motion. Although Plaintiff asserts that the Motion is filed pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”), the award Plaintiff seeks to confirm does not
appear to be a valid arbitration award. Plaintiff contends she entered into a contract containing
an arbitration clause with ODJFS, and that she successfully arbitrated a breach of that contract,

resulting in a monetary award of over $400,000 and an order that Plaintiff’s children be returned
to her. (ECF No. 1, PAGEID #81–82, 88). However, the contracts she attaches to her motion
bear no indication that ODJFS ever agreed to their terms. (ECF No. 1, PAGEID #20–75).
Further, the purported arbitration award was entered by Online Contract Arbitration (“OCA”), a
service that purports to provide parents with desk arbitrations to regain custody of their children
from state agencies like ODJFS as an alternative to proceedings in family court. (See
www.onlinecontractarbitration.com). OCA’s website directs users to
www.getmychildrenback.com, which inaccurately states that parents can create and enter into a
“conditional contract” with a state agency, without the state agency’s assent. Parents are advised
to allow the state agency to “default” on the conditional contract, and then take their claim for
breach of contract to arbitration with OCA. Because Plaintiff has not asserted or demonstrated
that the contracts on which she relies for their arbitration provisions were ever assented to by
ODJFS, those contracts, and any arbitration award purportedly arising out of them, are not
binding on ODJFS. There is also no indication that, even if valid, the contracts in question
“evidenc[e] a transaction involving commerce” falling within the purview of the Federal
Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 2.
As a result, the Court finds that it lacks either diversity or federal question subject-matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Motion. This action is therefore DISMISSED sua sponte pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7/1/2020
DATE

s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2