Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03509/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03509-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09:0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD E HINMAN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FUJITSU SOFTWARE CORP,

Defendant. /

No. C05-03509 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SEAL

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY COURT HAS

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

I. MOTION TO SEAL

On September 21, 2005, Fujitsu Software Corp. (“Defendant”) filed an ex parte

miscellaneous administrative request (“Motion to Seal”), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-

5, that the Court place under seal the following document: 

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify/Correct OR, Alternatively, Vacate Arbitration Award and

Recuse Arbitrator” filed August 30, 2005 (“Motion to Modify”).

Defendant adequately details that the contents of the Motion to Modify contains sensitive

trade secrets. Having read and considered the papers and for good cause shown, the Court the

Defendant’s Motion to Seal is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court shall place the above-referenced Motion to Modify, under seal.

Case 4:05-cv-03509-PJH Document 61 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The parties contacted the Court through a series of disruptive facsimile transmissions. Facsimile transmissions

are an improper means of communicating with the Court. Parties may only communicate with the Court through noticed or

administrative motion. All concerns should be addressed therein.

2

There was some confusion1 on the part of the parties as to which motion was to be heard on

October 25, 2005. The only motion properly filed by Defendant was the Motion to Seal, which was

scheduled on that date. As an administrative motion pursuant to aforementioned Civil Local Rules,

the motion is submitted for determination without need for hearing, and as such, the October 25,

2005 hearing is hereby VACATED. 

II. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff commenced this action through a motion seeking review of an arbitration award. It

is well settled that “federal courts must have an independent basis for federal jurisdiction to hear

claims under the FAA.” Vu Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 368 F.3d 1109, 1110 (9th Cir. 2004). 

A court may not hear a case if it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and must raise the issue

sua sponte if it appears that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443,

455 (U.S. 2004). Plaintiff, in the Motion to Modify, cites 9 USC §§ 10, 11, 12, 16 as the basis for

the Court’s jurisdiction. It is well established that these sections of the Federal Arbitration Act

(“FAA”), do not, on their own, confer subject matter jurisdiction on the part of the Court. Vu Luong

v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 368 F.3d at 1110. Nor does the FAA “create federal question jurisdiction

even when the underlying arbitration involves a federal question.” Id. A federal question for

purposes of subject matter jurisdiction must be presented in a well-pleaded petition. Id.

A party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996). 

On the face of Plaintiff’s petition, Plaintiff has not established that the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over the matter. 

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause by October 27, 2005, why this case should not

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff must submit a brief, no more than five

pages, detailing how this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter in light of the relevant

case law.

Case 4:05-cv-03509-PJH Document 61 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2005

 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-03509-PJH Document 61 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 3