EEON Foundation v. Google Inc.

Background

On February 21, 2020, EEON Foundation filed a motion under the Federal Arbitration Act asking the court to confirm a purported arbitration award against Google, Inc., YouTube, Inc., and Alphabet, Inc. The foundation invoked diversity jurisdiction. Its filings did not allege the foundation's citizenship or identify whether it was a corporation, an unincorporated association, a sole proprietorship, or another type of entity.

Brett Jones signed filings on behalf of EEON Foundation and was acting without a lawyer. The opinion states that the relationship between Jones and the foundation was not alleged and that the court had questions about whether he could represent the foundation. The court also noted that the foundation had not filed a copy of the purported arbitration agreement, had not served the defendants, and had not established other facts relevant to jurisdiction and venue.

Prior Orders and Noncompliance

A magistrate judge initially terminated the motion to confirm the arbitration award without prejudice because of procedural defects, including the lack of service, while allowing the foundation to re-notice the motion after properly commencing the case and serving the defendants. The Clerk later declined to enter default because service was not proper.

The court then ordered the foundation by May 29, 2020, to provide a declaration addressing its nature, its relationship with Jones, and its citizenship; file the purported arbitration agreement and other documents required by the Federal Arbitration Act; and serve the summons and motion on the defendants. The court warned that failure to complete service could result in dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).

The foundation did not file the required declaration, arbitration agreement, or proof of service, and did not otherwise respond to the court's order.

Service

The court held that notice of an application to confirm an arbitration award must be served on the opposing party. Rule 4(m) requires service within 90 days after filing. The court had extended the deadline to May 29, 2020, but service still had not occurred. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court also independently concluded that dismissal was supported under Rule 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal when the court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create federal subject-matter jurisdiction, so the foundation needed an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

The foundation relied on diversity jurisdiction, but it did not allege its own citizenship and did not comply with the order requiring information needed to establish jurisdiction. The court therefore found an independent basis for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Because the action was dismissed for failure to serve the defendants and failure to establish jurisdiction, the opinion did not decide whether the purported arbitration award should be confirmed.

Disposition

Senior United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the file and terminate any pending matters.