Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00005-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 

* This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD G. MORRISON, on behalf of ) 02:05-cv-005-GEB-KJM

himself and the general public of )

California, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

MBNA AMERICA BANK, NA, a commercial)

bank residing in Delaware; NATIONAL)

ARBITRATION FORUM, an entity of ) 

unknown structure operating in )

Minnesota; WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, an )

entity of unknown structure )

operating in Maryland, )

)

 Defendants. )

)

On October 5, 2005, Defendant MBNA America, N.A.

(“Defendant”) filed a “. . . Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and

to Enter Judgment Thereon . . .” which requests an order confirming an

arbitration award of $22,969.79 rendered in favor of Defendant against

Plaintiff by the National Arbitration Forum. Defendant argues that

such an order is appropriate under the Federal Arbitration Act. 

Plaintiff has filed no papers in opposition to the Petition. Since

Case 2:05-cv-00005-GEB-KJM Document 22 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

the Petition does not reveal any basis for the exercise of subject

matter jurisdiction, it is dismissed.

“[The] Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., does

not confer independent jurisdiction on the federal courts.” Pacific

Reinsurance Management Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019,

1021 (9th Cir. 1991). “[A]pplicants who . . . seek confirmation of an

arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 9 must demonstrate independent

grounds of federal subject matter jurisdiction.” General Atomic Co.

v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The Petition states that “jurisdiction in this Court is

proper.” (Petition at 7.) However, Defendant’s Petition fails to

demonstrate a basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist because Defendant has not

asserted a federal question relating to the Petition. See Carter v.

Health Net of California, Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Diversity jurisdiction clearly does not exist because the amount in

controversy does not exceed $75,000. Finally, the Court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Petition because the

Complaint over which the Court had original jurisdiction was dismissed

on October 4, 2005, and that dismissal converted to a dismissal with

prejudice on October 24, 2005.

For the reasons stated, Defendant’s Petition is dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is

directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2005 s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00005-GEB-KJM Document 22 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2