Tufano v. American Arbitration Association
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-00244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tufano v. American Arbitration Association, Judge Briccetti dismissed the case because the Federal Arbitration Act did not establish federal-court jurisdiction.
The dismissal ended Frank Tufano’s federal action against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz, and Sarah Thompson. The order left without prejudice any appropriate state-court action.
What happened
Frank Tufano, representing himself, sued the American Arbitration Association and three individual defendants. After he filed an amended complaint, the court ordered him to explain why the case should not be dismissed because the court might lack authority to hear it. The court noted that his allegations appeared to involve only state-law claims and did not identify the defendants’ citizenship or the amount at issue.
Tufano responded that he filed in federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court explained that the Act does not itself give federal courts authority to hear a case. A separate basis, such as a federal question or diversity of citizenship involving more than $75,000, was required. Tufano’s response did not provide the missing information or otherwise establish that basis.
The court dismissed the case without costs and without prejudice to Tufano’s right to bring an action in state court, if appropriate. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Tufano v. American Arbitration Association · No. 7:23-cv-00244
- Vincent Briccetti
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
Frank Tufano, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action on January 11, 2023, and filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2023. The defendants were the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz, and Sarah Thompson.
On January 18, 2023, the court ordered Tufano to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The court observed that the amended complaint appeared to raise only state-law claims. It also stated that Tufano had identified his own New York citizenship but had not alleged the citizenship of the defendants or the amount in controversy. Because he was representing himself, the court gave him an opportunity to establish jurisdiction and provided information about a legal-assistance organization for self-represented litigants.
Jurisdictional issue
In his response, Tufano argued that he filed the lawsuit under the Federal Arbitration Act and that a federal district court has authority to interpret and enforce that statute. The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act does not independently provide subject-matter jurisdiction. A federal court may hear a case under that Act only when another jurisdictional basis exists, such as federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.
The court had previously explained that diversity jurisdiction requires showing that the opposing parties are citizens of different states and that there is a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is at issue. Tufano’s response did not state the defendants’ citizenship or the amount in controversy. The court also found that, even liberally construing his allegations because he was self-represented, there was no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The dismissal was without costs and without prejudice to Tufano’s right to bring an action in state court, if appropriate. The Clerk was instructed to close the case. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order on January 31, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.