Jurisdiction Issues

COURT DISMISSES CHALLENGE OF FINRA ARBITRATION AWARD FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

June 22, 2015 by Carlton Fields

In a case involving a FINRA arbitration between investors and their financial advisor, Judge Anita S. Brody of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that she did not have the jurisdiction to hear a challenge of the arbitration award. Though FINRA rules may be subject to heavy federal regulation and approval by the SEC, the court found that this was not enough to create a federal question to give the court jurisdiction over the challenge. Instead, the court found that under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, review of an arbitration award with underlying federal questions does not in itself implicate a federal question sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. This is because where there is no merits review, “the substance of the underlying arbitration is generally irrelevant to a district court’s consideration of a motion to vacate.” Instead, the motion to vacate must raise a federal question on its face. The court further held that an argument of manifest disregard of federal law in such an instance was still heard as a claim under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which is “something of an anomaly in that it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or otherwise.” Accordingly, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04469-AB (USDC E.D. Pa. May 19, 2015).

This post written by Zach Ludens.

See our disclaimer.

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BARS APPELLATE REVIEW

June 18, 2015 by John Pitblado

In Walker v. TA Operating, LLC et. al., Case No. 14-41046 (5th Cir. May 22, 2015), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of an employment discrimination case subject to an arbitration agreement due to lack of jurisdiction. In the underlying case, the district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case because the district court determined that the parties were subject to a valid and applicable arbitration agreement. The district court’s decision was dictated by the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), which grants district courts two powers: 1) the authority to issue an order directing that arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement; and 2) the authority to stay an arbitrable proceeding pending the outcome of the contractually-required arbitration. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the cased due to lack of jurisdiction because an order by the district court administratively closing a case is tantamount to a stay, and bars appellate review. The Fifth Circuit explained that a district court has jurisdiction over final decisions of the district court and that Congress explicitly provided that appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a district court order granting a stay of any action under section 3 of the FAA or directing arbitration to proceed under section 4 of the FAA.

This post written by Kelly A. Cruz-Brown.

See our disclaimer.

VOLUNTARY-INVOLUNTARY RULE IMPLICATED IN REMOVAL PROCEEDING

May 11, 2015 by Carlton Fields

In late April, a district court in New York granted plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Utica”) motion to remand, implicating the voluntary-involuntary removal rule. Utica originally filed a breach of contract lawsuit against defendant American Re-Insurance Company (“American”). The lawsuit also named as co-defendant, Transatlantic Reinsurance Company (“Transatlantic”), a corporation domiciled and with a principal place of business in New York. American was initially unable to remove the case to federal court due to lack of diversity among the co-defendants.

A New York state court severed the claims against American and Transatlantic, thereby eliminating the diversity impediment for removal. Utica argued that “removability can only be created by Utica’s voluntary conduct,” and not by the court’s involuntary severance order. American argued that the voluntary-involuntary rule’s fraudulent misjoinder exception applied, as Transatlantic was improperly joined. The court found—citing second circuit precedent—that an action was not removable when non-diverse parties were made diverse by a court’s involuntary severance order. The voluntary-involuntary rule was designed to “protect against the possibility that a party might secure a reversal on appeal in state court of the non-diverse party’s dismissal, producing renewed lack of complete diversity in the state court action….in order to be removable, be one which could have been brought in federal court in the first instance.” The case turned on whether the order was final, and not simply voluntary.

As Utica’s severance order appeal was not yet final, a requirement under the voluntary-involuntary rule, the district court remanded the case back to the New York State Supreme Court. The court noted that American’s fraudulent misjoinder claim was “time barred” as defendants failed to file within thirty days after receipt. The court also noted that American understood “Utica’s motivation for joining Transatlantic and [American] as defendants in the same action,” an admission that went against their claim for fraudulent misjoinder.

Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. American Re-Ins. Co., No. 6:14-CV-1558 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2015).

This post written by Matthew Burrows, a law clerk at Carlton Fields in Washington, DC.

See our disclaimer.

FEDERAL COURT REMANDS INSURANCE DISPUTE TO STATE COURT BASED ON WAIVER

April 15, 2015 by Carlton Fields

A New York federal court remanded a reinsurance dispute to state court, based on the defendant’s waiver of its right to remove. Plaintiff R&Q Reinsurance Company (“R&Q”) brought an action against Allianz Insurance Company (“Allianz”) regarding a dispute as to R&Q’s indemnity obligations to Allianz under two reinsurance contracts. Allianz timely removed the action, as it met all the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction. However, R&Q moved to remand, based on the fact that Allianz had already answered and counterclaimed in state court, and had therefore waived its right to remove. The court agreed, granting the remand, finding that Allianz’s counterclaims, which sought affirmative relief, constituted a voluntary submission to the state court’s jurisdiction. The court denied R&Q’s bid for attorney’s fees, however, finding that Allianz had a reasonable basis on which to remove, particularly given that the action otherwise met the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. Allianz Ins. Co., Case No. 15-00166 (USDC S.D.N.Y. March 20, 2015)

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.

THIRD CIRCUIT: PENNSYLVANIA LAW PREEMPTED BY THE FAA

March 25, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The Third Circuit recently ruled that a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting an unregistered businesses from maintaining any “action or proceeding” in any court in the state interferes with the enforcement of arbitration awards and therefore is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The plaintiff was a non-registered company, but the parties had agreed that the arbitration could proceed and be administered under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The district court confirmed the arbitration award, and the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the FAA preempted application of the law because it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, noting that the intent of Congress in enacting the FAA was to promote arbitration. Therefore, the Pennsylvania statute, by barring any “action or proceeding,” interfered with the enforceability of the FAA and therefore was preempted.

The issue of state statutes interfering with the enforcement of arbitration awards has been a subject of Reinsurance Focus blogs numerous times. Particularly, courts have examined state statutes that require the posting of security before a non-admitted company may file suit in that state. We will continue to monitor case law addressing whether other courts find that the FAA pre-empts similar pre-pleading security statutes.

Generational Equity LLC v. Schomaker, No. 14-1291 (3d Cir. Feb. 23, 2015).

This post written by Catherine Acree.

See our disclaimer.