Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02364/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMILY ABBOTT,

an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

CROSSFIT INC.,

In Its Official Capacity as Owner 

and Operator of the Crossfit 

Games, DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed by 

Plaintiff Emily Abbott (ECF No. 3) and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Crossfit 

Inc. (ECF No. 10). 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff Emily Abbott initiated this action by filing a Petition 

to Vacate Arbitration Award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 10. 

(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate, or “remand . . . for reconsideration 

with a full and fair hearing on the merits,” sanctions imposed by the CrossFit Games AntiDoping Panel based on her positive test for banned substances.

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award. (ECF 

No. 3).

On November 5, 2018, Defendant filed a Response in opposition to the Motion to 

Vacate Arbitration Award. (ECF No. 9). 

On November 12, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 10). 

On November 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Vacate 

Arbitration Award. (ECF No. 13).

On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss. (ECF No. 15).

On December 3, 2018, Defendant filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss. 

(ECF No. 17). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges in the Petition that she “submitted to routine doping control” on May 

27, 2018 as a competitor of the 2018 CrossFit Regionals West. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff 

alleges that on June 18, 2018, she was notified that she had tested positive for a banned 

substance. Id. Plaintiff alleges that she inadvertently ingested the banned substance. Id.

at 2. Plaintiff alleges that she “submitted her appeal to the CrossFit Games Anti-Doping 

Panel, in which she requested that she set forth her written defense, and requested an inperson hearing.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that on July 15, 2018, the panel imposed the 

following sanctions: 

Ms. Abbott will be disqualified from the 2018 Reebok CrossFit Games West 

Regional, and her official placement will be removed from the leaderboard. 

We rescind her invitation to this year’s CrossFit Games, and she will be 

ineligible to compete in any sanctioned or licensed CrossFit competitions until 

June 21st, 2022.

Id. at 5. 

Plaintiff alleges that she “was never afforded a hearing in which she could provide 

live testimony and be cross-examined by counsel for CrossFit,” and that she was not 

“offered the opportunity to appeal the Award.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that the decision 

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

of the panel “was issued on consideration of submissions only and without a full and fair 

hearing.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the panel “improperly disregarded the evidentiary 

submissions of Ms. Abbott, and refused to afford Ms. Abbott a full and fair hearing on the 

merits of her case.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the decision of the panel “accused Ms. Abbott 

of potential additional conduct that would have constituted a wholly separate anti-doping 

rule violation that she was unable to respond to by virtue of being denied a hearing on the 

merits of her case.” Id. Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate, or “remand . . . for 

reconsideration with a full and fair hearing on the merits,” the sanctions imposed by the 

panel. Id. at 7. 

Plaintiff alleges that “this Court . . . has diversity jurisdiction over this proceeding 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest 

and costs, exceeds $75,000, and because plaintiff is a citizen of Calgary, Canada and 

defendant is an entity incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place 

of business in Prescott, Arizona and San Diego, California.” Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff contends that the Court should vacate or remand the panel’s decision 

because the panel did not afford her a fair and impartial hearing or due process as set forth 

in the World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) standards. Plaintiff contends that the

panel’s proceedings were fundamentally deficient because she received no “opportunity to 

present her case, present witnesses, present evidence, [or] have a fair opportunity to be 

heard.” (ECF No. 3 at 15). Plaintiff asserts that the panel exceeded its powers and failed 

to make a mutual, final, and definitive decision because it accepted her expert’s opinion 

that her ingestion of the banned substance was inadvertent, and also applied maximum 

sanctions and found her prescription medication indicated “covering up” of doping. Id. at 

15, 17. Plaintiff contends that the tribunal was not impartial because it was comprised of 

CrossFit’s General manager and in-house legal counsel, advisors from the drug testing 

agency, and “third party professionals who handle matters such as these, including 

arbitrations.” Id. at 16. Plaintiff asserts that the decisionmakers were not impartial because 

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

every decisionmaker “was either an employee of CrossFit, or a consultant retained by 

CrossFit for these purposes.” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to review by this Court because the CrossFit

panel proceeding was an arbitration within the meaning of the FAA. Plaintiff contends 

that “[u]nder the theories of estoppel and assumption,” an agreement to arbitrate existed 

because CrossFit follows WADA anti-doping standards, and “virtually any other athlete” 

subject to WADA anti-doping standards has access to “arbitral due process relief.” (ECF 

No. 13 at 2–3). For example, Plaintiff asserts that her appeal resembles “the former NFL 

hearing process,” which courts have described as arbitration. Id. at 5 (citing Williams v. 

Nat’l Football League, 582 F.3d 863, 869 (8th Cir. 2009)). Plaintiff asserts that she 

“reserves the right to commence legal action” and is “entitled to pursue all remedies 

available at law resulting from CrossFit’s wrongful four-year sanction.” Id. at 7–8. 

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff agreed to be bound by the 2018 CrossFit Games 

Drug-Testing Program and subsequently tested positive for a banned performanceenhancing drug. (ECF No. 9 at 6). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff appealed, submitting

briefing and approximately four hundred pages of supporting evidence, and arguing that 

she had unknowingly ingested the banned drug by kissing her fiancé with whom she lived 

and who had been taking the banned substance regularly for the past year. Defendant 

asserts that its review of Plaintiff’s written submission was “specifically contemplated in 

the Drug-Testing Program’s appeal process.” Id. at 6. Defendant asserts that the DrugTesting Program allowed CrossFit to issue up to a lifetime ban from the CrossFit Games. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has no basis to request judicial review under the FAA

because Plaintiff’s appeal was heard and decided by CrossFit, not by a third-party 

decisionmaker. 

Defendant moves to dismiss the Petition on the grounds that “there was never an 

agreement to arbitrate, no arbitration occurred, there was no arbitration award, and the 

Federal Arbitration Act does not apply.” (ECF No. 10-1 at 9). Defendant asserts that “the 

Drug-Testing Program unequivocally provides that CrossFit, not a third party, makes the 

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

final decision on every aspect of any violation of CrossFit’s Drug-Testing Program.” Id.

at 8. Defendant asserts, “There is no reference in the Drug-Testing Program to arbitration, 

an arbitrator, or any other third party decision maker. . . . All decisions on violations of the 

Drug-Testing Program are reserved solely to CrossFit. . . . Consistent with these provisions, 

Abbott’s drug testing violation appeal was submitted to CrossFit and considered by and 

denied by CrossFit employees.” Id. at 8. 

The FAA provides: 

[T]he United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made 

may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to 

the arbitration--

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;

(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either 

of them;

(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the 

hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent 

and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the 

rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed 

them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted 

was not made.

9 U.S.C. § 10. In California, “although arbitration can take many procedural forms, a 

dispute resolution procedure is not an arbitration unless there is a third party decision 

maker, a final and binding decision, and a mechanism to assure a minimum level of 

impartiality with respect to the rendering of that decision.” Cheng-Canindin v. 

Renaissance Hotel Assocs., 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 1996). 

In this case, Plaintiff seeks relief from a decision issued by the CrossFit Games AntiDoping Panel. The Petition alleges that the panel was biased, and that every decisionmaker 

“was either an employee of CrossFit, or a consultant retained by CrossFit for these 

purposes.” The 2018 CrossFit Games Drug-Testing Program states, 

Sanctions will be imposed at the sole discretion of CrossFit based on the

circumstances present in each case. Possible sanctions include . . . 

[s]uspension from participating in future CrossFit-sanctioned events. The 

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

length of this suspension will be determined by CrossFit Inc. on a case-bycase basis and may include a lifetime ban from all CrossFit-sanctioned or 

sponsored events. . . . 

Athletes who commit a violation of the Drug-Testing Policy will have the 

right to state their case prior to any sanctions being imposed. Following a 

review of the athlete’s petition of appeal, CrossFit will respond in a timely 

manner to provide a written response of its decision, including supporting 

reasons, either to deny or grant the appeal. If, after this investigation, the 

athlete is found to be in violation of the Drug-Testing Policy, CrossFit will 

proceed with applying any appropriate sanctions. In extraordinary cases, the 

athlete may request a personal hearing and it will be at CrossFit’s sole 

discretion to grant or deny such a request. Any decision made at such a hearing 

by CrossFit regarding the violation and any sanction(s) to be imposed shall be 

final.

Note: Athletes charged with a positive drug test will be entitled to ask for a

copy of the test results and all documents related to the acquisition of the 

sample and its processing. Athletes are also entitled to request that their “B”

sample be tested.

(ECF No. 10-2 at 9–10).1 The Court finds that the Drug-Testing Program gives CrossFit 

discretion to grant or deny in-person hearings. The Court finds that the Drug-Testing 

Program provides that CrossFit will carry out proceedings for sanctions and appeals. 

Compare Williams, 582 F.3d at 869 (referencing policy stating, “‘Players with a confirmed 

positive test result will be subject to discipline by the Commissioner . . . .’ Players subject 

to disciplinary action may appeal to an arbitrator, who is ‘either the Commissioner or his 

designee,’ and whose decision ‘constitute[s] a full, final, and complete disposition of the 

appeal’ that is ‘binding on all parties.’”). The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege facts 

showing that there was a third-party decisionmaker or a mechanism to assure a minimum 

 

1 Defendant requests judicial notice of the “2018 CrossFit Games Drug-Testing Program” and the “July 

15, 2018 e-mail from CrossFit to Plaintiff and her counsel concerning CrossFit’s denial of Plaintiff’s 

appeal of her drug testing violation.” (ECF No. 10-2 at 2). The Court grants the request for judicial notice. 

See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting judicial notice is appropriate if “the 

plaintiff’s claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion 

to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does 

not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint”).

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

level of impartiality. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing an 

arbitration occurred, and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. 

§ 10. See Cheng-Canindin, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 873 (“[A] dispute resolution procedure is 

not an arbitration unless there is a third party decision maker, a final and binding decision, 

and a mechanism to assure a minimum level of impartiality with respect to the rendering 

of that decision.”). 

In addition, the Petition fails to allege facts demonstrating subject matter 

jurisdiction. “It is well-established that even when a petition is brought under the FAA, a 

petitioner seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in federal court must establish 

an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.” Carter v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., 374 F.3d 

830, 833 (9th Cir. 2004). “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise 

that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 

982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that parties are not entitled to notice or an opportunity to 

respond “when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”). The FAA “does 

not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction.” See Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 368 

F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004). This Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions 

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs, and is between . . . (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign 

state . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Conclusory allegations as to the amount in controversy are 

insufficient.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090–91 (9th 

Cir. 2003); see also Hirmez v. GNC Holdings, Inc., No. 13-CV-1828 BEN JMA, 2014 WL 

2197088, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2014) (“A plaintiff must set forth the underlying facts 

supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum. . . 

. . Conclusory allegations devoid of factual support are insufficient.”) (quotation omitted). 

In this case, the Court finds that the allegation that “the amount in controversy, exclusive 

of interest and costs, exceeds $75,000” is conclusory. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090–

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

18-cv-2364-WQH-MDD

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

91. There are no facts alleged in the Petition to support the allegation that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed by 

Plaintiff Emily Abbott (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Crossfit 

Inc. (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without 

prejudice. If no motion for leave to amend is filed within thirty (30) days of this Order, the 

case will be closed. 

Dated: March 15, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02364-WQH-MDD Document 19 Filed 03/15/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8