Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00580/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00580-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

See More Light Investments,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Morgan Stanley DW Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0580-PHX-LOA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

AND ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule (?LRCiv”) 3.8(a), Rules of Practice, effective

December 1, 2007, all civil cases are, and will be, randomly assigned to a U.S. district

judge or to a U.S. magistrate judge. This matter has been assigned to the undersigned U.S.

Magistrate Judge. 

After review of the pro se Petition and some of its attached exhibits, a

number of issues will be addressed herein.

A. Voluntary Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

As a result of the aforesaid Local Rule and assignment, if all parties consent

in writing, the case will remain with the assigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

636(c)(1) for all purposes, including trial and final entry of judgment. If any party

chooses the district-judge option, the case will be randomly reassigned to a U.S. district

judge. To either consent to the assigned magistrate judge or to elect to have the case

heard before a district judge, the appropriate section of the form, entitled Consent To

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 8
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 consent/election form was mailed directly from the Clerk of the Court to

Plaintiff. A copy may also be obtained from the District of Arizona’s website at

www.azd.uscourts.gov. To find the consent/election form on the District’s web site, click

on “Local Rules” at the top of the page, then click on “Forms” on the left side of the page and

then click on and print the appropriate form.

- 2 -

Exercise Of Jurisdiction By United States Magistrate Judge1

, must be completed, signed

and filed. The party filing the case or removing it to this Court is responsible for serving

all parties with the consent forms. Each party must file a completed consent form and

certificate of service with the Clerk of the Court not later than 20 days after entry of

appearance, and must serve a copy by mail or hand delivery upon all parties of record in

the case.

 Any party is free to withhold consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction

without adverse consequences. 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2); Rule 73(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Anderson

v. Woodcreek Venture Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2003) (pointing out that

consent is the “touchstone of magistrate judge jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. §636(c). “A

party to a federal civil case has, subject to some exceptions, a constitutional right to

proceed before an Article III judge.” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1993)

(citing Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of Am. Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 541

(9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

Plaintiff shall have until on or before Friday, April 18, 2008 within which

to make his selection to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed

before a United States district judge. A copy of the appropriate consent form mailed to

Plaintiff on March 27, 2008 by the Clerk's office to be served with the Petition per the

written instructions from the Clerk.

B. Jurisdiction

 A review of the Court’s file indicates that on March 26, 2008, Dr.

Seymour Licht, on behalf of Plaintiff, filed a 56-page document entitled, “Motion that the

District Court Issue an Order Vacating the Arbitrators (sic) Order Denying His Claim

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 8
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

 In July 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) became

known as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or “FINRA.” Herbert J. Sims & Co., Inc.

v. Roven, 2008 WL 686591, n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Martin v. Scott & Stringfellow, Inc., 2008

WL 706507 n. 1 (E.D. Va. 2008).

- 3 -

Issued on February 4th, 2008,” containing 171 pages of unnumbered or unlettered

exhibits. (docket #1) Included in the exhibits are pages of a specific Code of Federal

Regulations. (Id., Exhibit (“Exh”) 2 pp. 6 - 13) The Court deems Plaintiff’s 56-page

document a petition to vacate denial of arbitration award pursuant to, presumably, the

parties’ FINRA2

 Agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. A.G.

Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)

(ordering the arbitration award confirmed, and awarding the prevailing party “attorneys’

fees in accordance with the agreements between the parties”).

It is well-established that even when a petition is brought under the Federal

Arbitration Act, 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, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S.

1, 15 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 852, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (noting that “[w]hile the Federal

Arbitration Act creates federal substantive law requiring the parties to honor arbitration

agreements, it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction”); Garrett v.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir. 1993)

(discussing Supreme Court cases and collecting Ninth Circuit precedent and cases from

other circuits applying this jurisdictional principle).

A federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of

establishing jurisdiction is on the party claiming jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors

Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936). “A federal court is presumed to lack

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stevedoring

Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert, 953 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Stock West, Inc.

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 8
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

 If jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the Amended Petition shall include

a statement of the citizenship of every party and a description of the amount in dispute. 28

U.S.C. §1332. Plaintiff is informed that (1) a corporation is a citizen of the state where it is

incorporated and the state of its principle place of business and (2) partnerships and limited

liability companies are citizens of every state in which one of their members or partners

resides. 28 U.S.C. §1332(c); Indus. Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.

1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th

Cir. 2003). “Diversity jurisdiction is based on citizenship, not residency.” Kalinowski v.

Davol, Inc., 2006 WL 2615894 * 2 (D. Ariz. 2006) (emphasis in original). “To be a citizen

of a particular state, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be

domiciled within that state.” Id. (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S.

826, 828 (1989)).

- 4 -

v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.1989)). “A [district] court has an

obligation to inquire sua sponte into its subject matter jurisdiction, and to proceed no

further if such jurisdiction is wanting.” Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665

(9th Cir. 2003).

As discussed below, Plaintiff will be required to timely file an Amended

Petition to Vacate Denial of Arbitration Award which shall set forth an independent basis

for federal jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s case.3

 Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to allege an

independent basis for federal jurisdiction of this case may result in the dismissal of it.

Rule 12(h)(3), FED.R. CIV.P. (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

C. Compliance with Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P.

Federal Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in

pertinent part:

 Claims for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 -

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief.

Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P. (emphasis added). 

Even though pro se pleadings are held “to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” pro se litigants must become familiar, and comply,

with the Rules of Civil Procedure (“FED.R.CIV.P.”) and the Local Rules of Practice for

the District Court for the District of Arizona (“LRCiv”). Carter v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987). Litigants proceeding pro se “must meet certain minimal standards of

pleading.” Holsey v Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Maryland, 1981). “A complaint [or

petition] that . . . fails to plainly and concisely state the claims asserted and fails to give

the dates and places of the alleged events of which the plaintiff complains, falls short of

the liberal and minimal standards set out in Rule 8(a).” Walton v Shanelec, 19 F. Supp.

2d 1209, 1210 (D. Kansas 1998).

Plaintiff’s 56-page, pro se-Petition grossly fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a) because it is clearly not a “short and plain statement” of Plaintiff’s claims

supported by brief, material facts as required. Because of its sheer mass, it is extremely

difficult to read and comprehend the petition. The extremely large and varying font sizes

should be reduced to a uniform font “no smaller than 13 point,” LRCiv 7.1(b)(1), and the

Amended Petition, consistent with LRCiv 7.2(g), should be limited, if possible, to no

more than 17 pages. Plaintiff will be ordered to file an Amended Petition to Vacate

Denial of Arbitration Award that complies in all aspects with this Order, Rule 8(a),

FED.R.CIV.P., and Local Rules of Practice or this lawsuit may be dismissed without

prejudice for failing to comply with court orders. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in

the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate,

dismissal of a case). 

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 8
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

4

 Under Rule 31, Ariz. R. Sup.Ct., corporate officers may, for example, represent

corporations in justice courts, small claims proceedings, the general stream adjudication,

before the department of environmental quality, and in other special proceedings. Boydston,

193 Ariz. at 50 , 969 P.2d at 656

- 6 -

D. Pro se Representation

Since Dr. Seymour Licht is pro se and, therefore, is representing his own

interests in Plaintiff, the Court expressly advises him that the United States Supreme

Court has made clear that federal “judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal

to pro se litigants” because requiring trial judges to explain the details of federal

procedure or act as the pro se’s counsel “would undermine [federal] judges’ role as

impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226-227 (2004). “A [pro se

litigant] does not have a constitutional right to receive personal instruction from the trial

judge on courtroom procedure” and that “the Constitution [does not] require judges to

take over chores for a pro se [litigant] that would normally be attended to by trained

counsel as a matter of course.” Id. (citing Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth

Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 162 (2000)). 

It is unknown if Dr. Seymour Licht is a lawyer and whether there are any

other partners in the Plaintiff See More Light Investments. While a natural person can

always appear pro per, a non-lawyer may not represent other persons, partners or, with a

few minor exception not applicable herein, a corporation, an entity unto itself quite

separate from its owners and officers. Boydston v. Strole Development Co., 193 Ariz. 47,

50, 969 P.2d 653, 656 (Ariz. 1998).4

 “Except as herein otherwise provided, only

members of the bar of this Court shall practice in this District.” LRCiv 83.1(b). Dr. Licht

will be permitted to represent only himself unless he fully meets the Local Rules’

requirements. If not represented by counsel in the Amended Petition, Dr. Licht shall

explain his relationship to Plaintiff in the Amended Petition and any other persons and

entity having a financial interest, if any, in Plaintiff See More Light Investments.

 Accordingly,

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 -

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file on or before Friday, April 18,

2008 his written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to

proceed before a United States district judge.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve upon the

Defendant the appropriate consent form provided at or near the time of the filing of his

petition. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall either consent to

magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a district judge within twenty (20)

days of Defendant’s formal appearance herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Petition

to Vacate Denial of Arbitration Award on or before Friday, April 18, 2008 that complies

in all aspects with this Order, Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P., and Local Rules of Practice or this

lawsuit may be dismissed without prejudice. No exhibits shall be attached to the

Amended Petition as numerous exhibits have already been filed herein. Exhibits may

filed with dispositive motions pursuant to Rule 56, FED.R.CIV.P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if

unrepresented, shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2007. The

District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at

www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 -

fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge this party’s duties to “abide by the

rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter, 784 F.2d at 1008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if

unrepresented, shall use the above caption, number and initials until further order of the

Court.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00580-JAT Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 8 of 8