Associates National Bank v. Erum

Ninth Circuit

Associates National Bank v. Erum

80 F. App'x 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2003

DocketNo. 03-15320; D.C. No. CV-00-00769-SOM(BMK)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 F. App'x 609 (Associates National Bank v. Erum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Associates National Bank v. Erum, 80 F. App'x 609 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Theodorico Erum, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award and dismissing his counterclaims against Associates National Bank (“ANB”). Erum also appeals the [610]*610court’s interlocutory orders staying the action pending arbitration and compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). ANB filed this action in Hawaii state court, and Erum removed the action to the federal district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand.

‘We have an ongoing obligation to be sure that jurisdiction exists.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (order). The FAA does not provide an independent source of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1103 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003). It is not clear from the face of the complaint that the district court had either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the action. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (in a diversity action, the removing party must prove that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 where it is not “facially evident” from complaint); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821-22 (9th Cir.1985) (federal question jurisdiction arises only from the face of a well-pleaded complaint, not the defenses or counterclaims alleged by a defendant). We therefore remand this matter to the district court to determine whether the complaint adequately alleges a federal cause of action or facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Cf. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1091.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Theodorico Erum, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award and dismissing his counterclaims against Associates National Bank (“ANB”). Erum also appeals the [610]*610court’s interlocutory orders staying the action pending arbitration and compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). ANB filed this action in Hawaii state court, and Erum removed the action to the federal district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand.

‘We have an ongoing obligation to be sure that jurisdiction exists.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (order). The FAA does not provide an independent source of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1103 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003). It is not clear from the face of the complaint that the district court had either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over the action. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (in a diversity action, the removing party must prove that amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 where it is not “facially evident” from complaint); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821-22 (9th Cir.1985) (federal question jurisdiction arises only from the face of a well-pleaded complaint, not the defenses or counterclaims alleged by a defendant). We therefore remand this matter to the district court to determine whether the complaint adequately alleges a federal cause of action or facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Cf. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1091.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. App'x 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associates-national-bank-v-erum-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack