Summary
dismissing action where arbitration award was for $19,306.74 "well below the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction"
Summary of this case from Busby v. Bruce Massey Constr., LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2034-G.
November 5, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On September 20, 2004, the plaintiff, Joan Kearns, filed a motion to vacate an arbitration award ("Motion to Vacate") entered against her in a dispute between her and the defendant, MBNA America Bank, N.A. ("MBNA"). For the reasons stated below, Kearns' motion to vacate is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Kearns and MBNA entered into a contract on or about October 1999. Motion to Vacate ¶ 7. On or about October 17, 2003, MBNA filed a claim against Kearns in the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum"). Id. ¶ 9. The Forum entered an award against Kearns for $19,306.74, of which she received notice on June 30, 2004. Id. ¶ 12.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Owen Equipment and Erection Company v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over cases only as expressly provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citations omitted). Federal law gives the federal district courts original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and also over "all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A party attempting to invoke federal court jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction. Langley v. Jackson State University, 14 F.3d 1070, 1073 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994).
Kearns claims that this court has jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 10, 12. Motion to Vacate ¶ 1. "It is well established that the FAA is not an independent grant of federal jurisdiction." Smith v. Rush-Retail Centers, Inc., 360 F.3d 504, 505 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 100 (2004). Therefore, "there must be an independent basis for federal jurisdiction before a district court may entertain a petition to vacate an arbitration award." Id. This is a motion to enforce a private arbitration award; thus, jurisdiction does not arise under "the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, the arbitration award was for $19,306.74, Motion to Vacate ¶ 12, which is well below the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist and the court does not have jurisdiction to hear Kearns' claim. See Mannesmann Dematic Corporation v. Phillips, Getschow Co., No. Civ. A. 3:00-CV-2324-G, 2001 WL 282796 at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2001) (Fish, J.).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Kearns' motion to vacate is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.