Broumand v. Joseph
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:20-cv-09137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Broumand v. Joseph, Judge Rakoff ordered supplemental briefing and argument on unresolved issues concerning federal arbitration subpoenas.
Stafford Broumand and the respondents in the arbitration-subpoena enforcement proceeding, particularly Jeremy Joseph and Sean Gabriel, who were the subpoena recipients identified in the order.
What happened
In Broumand v. Joseph, Stafford Broumand asked the court to enforce subpoenas issued by an arbitrator against Jeremy Joseph and Sean Gabriel. The subpoenas required them to appear at a Manhattan hearing and provide testimony and documents, but they did not comply.
The respondents asked the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the court lacked authority over them and that the subpoenas were invalid. The court identified additional unanswered questions about nationwide service, which contacts matter for authority over the respondents, geographic limits on subpoenas, and whether videoconference testimony and document production were allowed.
The court did not decide the petition or the motions to dismiss. Judge Rakoff ordered opening briefs by January 15, response briefs by January 22, and telephonic oral argument on January 27, 2021.
The detailed version
- Broumand v. Joseph · No. 1:20-cv-09137
- Jed Rakoff
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Stafford Broumand was involved in an ongoing arbitration in New York. The arbitrator issued subpoenas requiring Jeremy Joseph, who resides in California, and Sean Gabriel, who resides in Virginia, to appear at an evidentiary hearing in Manhattan and provide testimony and documents. After Joseph and Gabriel did not comply, Broumand filed a petition under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act to compel compliance. The arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on February 1, 2021.
The respondents moved to dismiss. They argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over them, and that the arbitral subpoenas were otherwise invalid.
Questions Identified by the Court
The court concluded that additional issues had to be addressed before it could resolve the matter:
- Whether Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, considered alongside the 2013 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits nationwide service of process.
- If nationwide service is permitted, whether personal jurisdiction in a proceeding enforcing an arbitral subpoena is based on a person's contacts anywhere in the United States, even when the case is based on diversity jurisdiction rather than federal-question jurisdiction.
- Whether the geographic limits in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), which governs subpoenas, also apply to subpoenas issued in arbitration under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act. If so, the court also questioned whether Rule 45 requires or permits a district court to cancel or change a subpoena that requires compliance outside those geographic limits.
- Whether an arbitral subpoena may require a non-party to appear by videoconference at an evidentiary hearing to testify and produce documents under the Second Circuit's rule allowing document production when the person is called as a witness at a hearing.
Order
Because the parties had not adequately briefed the first three questions, and Broumand had only briefly addressed the fourth, the court ordered supplemental briefing. Opening briefs were due January 15, 2021, and response briefs were due January 22, 2021. The court also scheduled telephonic oral argument for January 27, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. The order did not resolve the petition or the respondents' motions to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.