Prince v. TD Bank N.A.

Background

Jeffrey Prince, who appeared without a lawyer, sued TD Bank N.A.; “TD Bank Group/TD Bank”; Riaz E. Ahmed, identified as a TD Bank chief financial officer; and Manjit Singh, also identified as a TD Bank chief financial officer. The complaint alleged no facts in its statement of claim and did not identify any injuries or requested relief. Because Prince attached a document labeled a “Final Arbitration Award,” the court treated the filing as a request under the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm that award.

The attached document purported to award Prince $399,028.66. It identified the HMP Arbitration Association and three arbitrators, and described a dispute involving Prince, TD Bank, Singh, and other unspecified parties. The document asserted that the parties had entered into a written agreement and that the defendants had failed to perform their obligations, but it did not specify the contractual obligations or explain how the defendants breached them.

Why the Court Questioned the Filing

The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself give federal courts jurisdiction. Because the claimed dispute appeared to involve a contract, which ordinarily falls under state law, Prince needed to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction. That generally requires complete diversity between the parties and more than $75,000 in controversy.

The court found that Prince had not supplied enough information. He alleged that he was a New York citizen and appeared to allege that TD Bank was also a New York citizen based on its principal place of business, while separately listing a Maine post-office box. He did not identify TD Bank’s main office as designated in its articles of association. He also appeared to allege that Singh was a citizen of both New York and New Jersey, alleged nothing about Ahmed’s citizenship, and provided no facts explaining why he was entitled to $399,028.66.

The court also questioned whether the defendants had agreed to arbitrate. It cited decisions from other federal district courts that had rejected or vacated purported awards from HMP organizations because the defendants had not agreed to arbitration. The court stated that it had reason to believe the award Prince sought to confirm was fabricated and directed him to explain why the motion should not be denied as frivolous. This was the court’s stated concern, not a final finding that the award was fabricated.

Order

The court ordered Prince to show cause within 30 days why his motion should not be denied because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the defendants had not agreed to arbitration, and the motion was frivolous. The court stated that it would deny the motion for those reasons if Prince failed to respond within that period. Thus, the order was not itself a final denial of the motion.

The court directed the clerk to mail Prince a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.