White v. U.S. Center for SafeSport

Background

SafeSport was designated by Congress to investigate and adjudicate allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct within U.S. Olympic and Paralympic organizations. SafeSport determined that White, a horse trainer and riding instructor, had engaged in sexual misconduct for three decades with minors and adult women in equestrian sports. It imposed a lifetime ban on White’s participation in Olympic and Paralympic activities.

White requested arbitration review of the ban. The arbitrator agreed with the lifetime ban. White then filed a petition under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act seeking to vacate the arbitration decision or send the matter back for reconsideration.

Jurisdictional issue

White relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court previously gave White opportunities to explain why that requirement was met. In an amended petition, White alleged that he had lost more than $75,000 in income as a hay dealer and horse stable operator as a direct result of the arbitration decision.

The court concluded that these alleged losses did not establish the required amount in controversy. White sought only to vacate the arbitration decision or obtain new arbitration proceedings. Those forms of relief might restart the arbitration process, but they would not themselves reverse the lifetime ban imposed by SafeSport. The ban would remain in effect unless a later arbitrator decided otherwise. Therefore, even if White prevailed on his petition, vacating the arbitration decision would not restore the income he claimed to have lost.

The court also discussed, but did not decide, whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow v. Walters requires an arbitration petition based on diversity jurisdiction to be evaluated only from the face of the petition. The court said the case could be resolved under established diversity-jurisdiction principles.

Ruling

The court held that White had not carried his burden of showing that the amount in controversy satisfied the $75,000 statutory requirement. Judge James Donato dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to a vacatur proceeding in state court, as circumstances might permit. The court also concluded that another opportunity to amend was unwarranted after White had received three opportunities to establish federal jurisdiction.