Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01531/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01531-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Arbitration Forum
Appellee
Matthew D. Pinnavaia
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1531

___________

Matthew D. Pinnavaia, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

National Arbitration Forum, Inc., *

C [Unpublished]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2004

Filed: December 8, 2004 

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Pinnavaia appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court for the District of Minnesota dismissing his civil complaint. For reversal

Pinnavaia argues, inter alia, the district court erred in determining that he did not state

a claim under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10. For the reasons discussed

below, we modify the judgment of the district court and affirm as modified.

In keeping with the other circuits that have addressed the issue, we hold that

9 U.S.C. § 10 does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis for filing suit in

federal court. See Smith v. Rush Retail Ctrs., Inc., 360 F.3d 504, 505 & n.6 (5th Cir.

Appellate Case: 04-1531 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2004 Entry ID: 1842141 
-2-

2004) (per curiam) (holding, in reliance on Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983), that § 10 does not confer subject matter

jurisdiction; listing cases from D.C., Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh

Circuits holding same). Pinnavaia did not allege his action arose under any other

federal statute or under the Constitution, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question

jurisdiction), and he did not allege a matter in controversy exceeding the value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction).

We thus conclude that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of

Pinnavaia’s civil action. See Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 485

(8th Cir. 1993) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and may be

raised sua sponte by court at any time).

Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice and affirm as

modified. See Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123-24 (2d Cir.

1999) (Article III prevents federal courts from dismissing case with prejudice where

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking); Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 170 (8th Cir.

1995) (appeals court may affirm on any ground supported by record). We also deny

appellee’s motion for fees and costs.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1531 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2004 Entry ID: 1842141