UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

EYOEL-DAWIT MATIOS, et al., in sui 

juris capacity, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF LOVELAND, et al., in care of 

Stephen C. Adams, City Manager, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 22-1047 

(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02194-WJM-NRN) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Eyoel-Dawit Matios brought a pro se1

 Petition to Confirm an Arbitration 

Award issued in his favor against the City of Loveland (the “City”)2

 by Brett “Eeon” 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Matios is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally, 

but we will not act as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

2

 The Final Arbitration Award appears to have been awarded against the City 

and two of its employees, but Mr. Matios’s Petition seeks only to confirm the award 

issued against the City. Thus, we refer only to the arbitration award against the City. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 14, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 1
2 

Jones of Sitcomm Arbitration Association (“Sitcomm”).3

 The district court denied the 

Petition because there was no contract between the parties. Mr. Matios appeals. 

Because there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction to grant or deny Mr. Matios’s 

Petition, we vacate and remand for the district court to dismiss the Petition without 

prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND 

During a traffic stop, a City law enforcement officer gave Mr. Matios a 

citation for speeding. Mr. Matios then sent a document entitled “Notice of Verified 

Claim for Relief and Money Demand” to the City. ROA at 21. In this document, 

Mr. Matios alleged the traffic stop and citation violated numerous state and federal 

laws and argued the City owed him millions of dollars in damages as a result. This 

document also purports to be a “Self-Executing Contract Agreement Fee Schedule,” 

id., which Mr. Matios contends obligated the City to respond to his claims “point for 

point” or be deemed to have agreed to the claims and the terms in the “contract,” id.

at 55–56. The document also includes an arbitration clause that establishes arbitration 

as the sole remedy for any issue associated with the “agreement.” Id. at 54–58. 

The City responded by generally denying the claims. Because the City did not 

respond to the claims “point for point,” however, Mr. Matios sent two 

3

 The Final Arbitration Award suggests Sitcomm recused itself, and Mr. Jones 

is an independent arbitrator separate from Sitcomm. But it appears Mr. Jones runs 

Sitcomm or is closely associated with Sitcomm. See Satcomm v. PayPal, No. 5:19-

mc-10-MTT, 2020 WL 1609503, at *2 n.1, 3 (M.D. Ga. April 1, 2020) (recognizing 

Mr. Jones’s connection to Sitcomm). 

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 2
3 

communications warning the City that it had agreed with his claims and consented to 

all the terms contained in the document, including the arbitration clause. Id. at 86. 

Both times the City responded by rejecting and denying the claims. Mr. Matios then 

submitted the claims to arbitration with Sitcomm4

 and notified the City of a hearing 

date. The City maintained it had not agreed to arbitration and stated it would not 

participate. 

Nevertheless, the arbitrator, Mr. Jones, issued a “Final Arbitration Award” that 

largely consisted of rambling and disjointed legalese. After parsing through the 

language in the award, it appears Mr. Jones concluded the parties had agreed to 

arbitrate because the City had a duty to respond but failed to do so and, without 

analyzing the claims, awarded Mr. Matios $300,000,000 against the City. 

 Mr. Matios then filed a Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award in the 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The magistrate judge 

ordered Mr. Matios to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for 

(1) lack of an enforceable agreement and (2) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

4

 Federal courts have encountered several petitions to vacate or confirm 

arbitration awards issued by Sitcomm and/or Mr. Jones, and they have consistently 

questioned the validity of the underlying contracts and the subsequent arbitration 

awards. See, e.g., Mark Wayne Nation v. United States, No. 2022-1256, 2022 WL 

1655693, at *1 n.* (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2022); Castro v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 852 F. 

App’x 25, 29 n.1 (2d Cir. 2021) (unpublished); United States v. Hallman, No. 3:05-

376, 2021 WL 3773335, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2021); Anderson v. United States, 

No. H-21-1889, 2021 WL 2417157, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2021); Nelson v. 

Jackson, No. 3:20-cv-28 (CAR), 2021 WL 5035027, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 2021); 

Domino v. Barr, No. 20-2583 (ECT/BRT), 2021 WL 1795762, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. 

Feb. 8, 2021). 

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 3
4 

Mr. Matios responded that (1) the City officials’ oaths of office and the selfexecuting contract established a valid contract and (2) the Federal Arbitration Act 

(“FAA”) provided federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the Petition. The 

magistrate judge recommended the Petition be denied because there was no valid 

agreement between the parties. Mr. Matios objected to that recommendation. Despite 

Mr. Matios’s objection, the district court denied the Petition and granted the City’s 

motion to dismiss for the reasons provided by the magistrate judge. Mr. Matios 

appeals the district court’s decision. 

II. DISCUSSION 

As an initial matter, the City argues there is no federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction over the Petition because the FAA alone does not provide jurisdiction. 

Before we can turn to the merits of the Petition, we must determine whether federal 

subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). 

The FAA “‘does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction,’” so 

“‘there must be diversity of citizenship or some other independent basis for federal 

jurisdiction’ before a federal court can act under the FAA.” P&P Indus., Inc. v. Sutter 

Corp., 179 F.3d 861, 866 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. 

Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983)). The process for determining 

whether there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction varies for different 

types of petitions brought under the FAA. See Badgerow v. Walters, 142 S. Ct. 1310, 

1316–18 (2022) (distinguishing the jurisdictional inquiry for a petition to compel 

arbitration and a petition to confirm an arbitration award). For a petition to confirm 

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 4
5 

an arbitration award under Section 9 of the FAA, like the one at issue here, courts do 

not “look through the . . . applications” to determine whether it would have 

jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. Id. at 1317. Courts look only to the face of 

the petition to confirm the arbitration award. Id. at 1316–18. Thus, we must 

determine whether the Petition itself raises a federal question without regard for the 

underlying claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or whether there is diversity jurisdiction, id.

§ 1332. 

We begin by considering whether the Petition raises a federal question. In a 

petition to confirm an arbitration award, the parties are contesting “the enforceability 

of an arbitral award,” which is “no more than a contractual resolution of the parties’ 

dispute.” Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1316–17. These contractual disputes are issues of 

state law, not federal law. Id. at 1317. Thus, the Petition does not establish federalquestion jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter 

because Mr. Matios and the City are both citizens of Colorado. See ROA at 9 (noting 

Mr. Matios is a citizen of Colorado); Moor v. Alameda Cnty., 411 U.S. 693, 717–18 

(1973) (“[A] political subdivision of a State . . . is a citizen of the State for diversity 

purposes.”). As such, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the 

Petition must be dismissed without prejudice. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 

F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must 

be without prejudice). 

The City also requests its attorney’s fees for defending the appeal because 

Mr. Matios brought the appeal in bad faith and for oppressive and vexatious reasons 

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 5
6 

after being told numerous times the arbitration award was not valid. We lack 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Petition, but the method for determining 

jurisdiction for a petition to confirm an arbitration award was not settled until after 

Mr. Matios filed his Notice of Appeal. ROA at 237 (Notice of Appeal dated February 

17, 2022); Badgerow, 142 S. Ct. at 1317–18 (holding courts do not look to the 

underlying dispute to determine jurisdiction over petitions to confirm arbitration 

awards on March 31, 2022). Therefore, we deny the City’s request. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, we VACATE and REMAND the denial of the Petition and 

instruct the district court to dismiss it without prejudice. We also DENY the City’s 

request for attorney’s fees. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-1047 Document: 010110710743 Date Filed: 07/14/2022 Page: 6