|
A United States District Court in Alabama affirmed the long-held principle that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not confer federal question jurisdiction in and of itself.
In Austin v. MBNA America, Civil Action No. 3:06cv1071-MHT, 2006 WL 3496655 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2006), Austin made his second attempt in two months to confirm an arbitration award in federal court. As it did with Austin's first complaint, the Court dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court, in dismissing the motion, stated that federal district courts have limited jurisdiction, which means that parties coming before such courts are required to properly allege jurisdictional elements in their pleadings. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). However, the mere fact that an arbitration agreement is "governed" by the FAA does not result in federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n. 32 (1983). Some independent source—either a federal question arising under the Constitution, law, or treatises of the United States, or a diversity case meeting the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332—is required for a federal court to confirm an arbitration award. Since Austin had not demonstrated either of these elements, the Court held that the confirmation request should have been filed with the appropriate state court.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|