Floyd v. Crunch Fitness - San Jose
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-08314
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Floyd v. Crunch Fitness - San Jose, Judge DeMarchi ordered Michael Floyd to show why his arbitration challenge should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Michael Floyd and Crunch Fit, the entity that opposed Floyd’s petition and sought to affirm the arbitration award.
What happened
Michael Floyd, representing himself, asked the court to vacate an arbitration award arising from a dispute with Bay Area Crunchers, LLC, doing business as Crunch Fit. Crunch Fit opposed the request and asked the court to affirm the award.
The court questioned whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow v. Walters, the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create federal jurisdiction, and federal claims raised in the underlying arbitration generally cannot supply jurisdiction for a petition to vacate or confirm an award. The court said the record did not appear to show a jurisdictional basis, and Crunch Fit agreed that jurisdiction was lacking.
The court did not dismiss the action at this stage. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Mr. Floyd to file, by April 23, 2025, a written explanation of any basis for federal jurisdiction; Crunch Fit may reply by April 30, 2025. Each filing is limited to 10 pages.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Crunch Fitness - San Jose · No. 5:24-cv-08314
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Michael Floyd, who is representing himself, filed a petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award arising from a dispute with Bay Area Crunchers, LLC, doing business as Crunch Fit. The petition names Crunch Fitness - San Jose as the defendant. Crunch Fit opposed the petition and moved for an order affirming the arbitration award.
The parties appeared at a hearing on April 8, 2025. The court had asked them to address whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow v. Walters.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create federal jurisdiction. For petitions to vacate or confirm arbitration awards under sections 9 or 10 of that Act, a federal court generally cannot examine the underlying dispute to find jurisdiction; it may look only to the application submitted to the court.
Mr. Floyd relied on federal claims asserted in the underlying arbitration as the basis for federal-question jurisdiction. The court concluded that those underlying federal claims were not enough to establish jurisdiction over this petition. Based on the record and the hearing, the court said it did not appear to have subject matter jurisdiction. Crunch Fit conceded that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Order
The court stated that the action must be dismissed if there is no basis for federal jurisdiction and expressed doubt that Mr. Floyd could state such a basis on the current record. But the court did not yet dismiss the action. Instead, because Mr. Floyd is representing himself, it issued an order to show cause and gave him an opportunity to explain why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Mr. Floyd must file a written response by April 23, 2025, explaining any basis for the court’s jurisdiction. Crunch Fit may file a reply by April 30, 2025. Each filing may not exceed 10 pages. The court cautioned that any jurisdictional argument must be supported by the record and existing law, and that factual allegations must be made in good faith based on anticipated evidentiary support.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.