Floyd v. Crunch Fitness - San Jose

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-08314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MICHAEL FLOYD, Case No. 24-cv-08314-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 10 v. DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 11 CRUNCH FITNESS - SAN JOSE, Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 9, 12 Defendant. 12

13 14 Michael Floyd, who is representing himself, filed a petition seeking an order vacating an 15 arbitration award resulting from a dispute with Bay Area Crunchers, LLC, doing business as 16 Crunch Fit (“Crunch Fit”).1 Dkt. No. 1. Crunch Fit opposed Mr. Floyd’s petition and moved for 17 an order affirming the arbitration award. Dkt. No. 12. The parties appeared at an April 8, 2025 18 hearing on their respective motions. Dkt. No. 21. In an April 7, 2025 order, the Court invited the 19 parties’ responses regarding whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, in view of 20 Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022). Dkt. No. 25. 21 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)2 does not itself create federal jurisdiction; rather, a 22 federal court must have an independent basis on which to exercise jurisdiction. See Badgerow, 23 596 U.S. at 4. For requests to vacate or to confirm arbitral awards under FAA sections 9 or 10 (9 24 U.S.C. §§ 9, 10), a federal court does not look to the underlying arbitration to determine its 25 1 Crunch Fit says that it erroneously was named in Mr. Floyd’s petition as “Crunch Fitness-San 26 Jose.” See Dkt. No. 11.

27 2 The record indicates that the parties entered into an agreement affecting interstate commerce and 1 || jurisdiction, and instead “may look only to the application actually submitted to it in assessing its 2 || jurisdiction.” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 5. Based on the record presented, and the discussion held at 3 the April 8, 2025 hearing, it does not appear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 4 || this action. Mr. Floyd’s petition invokes federal question jurisdiction based on his assertion of 5 || federal claims in the underlying arbitration. At the hearing, Mr. Floyd reiterated the same. See 6 Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 9 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 27. However, as discussed above, the presence 7 of federal claims in the underlying arbitration is not a sufficient basis for the Court’s jurisdiction 8 over this action. See Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 5. At the hearing, Crunch Fit conceded that this 9 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 27. 10 As there appears to be no basis on which this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this 11 matter, this action must be dismissed. On the record presented, the Court is doubtful that any 12 basis for its jurisdiction could be stated. Nevertheless, as discussed at the hearing, and in view of 5 13 Mr. Floyd’s self-represented status, he will be given an opportunity to state why this action should 14 || not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By April 23, 2025, Mr. Floyd shall file a 3 15 || written response to this order, explaining the basis (if any) for this Court’s jurisdiction over this a 16 || action. Crunch Fit may have until April 30, 2025 in which to file a reply to Mr. Floyd’s filing. 3 17 || Each party’s filing shall not exceed 10 pages. 18 As discussed at the hearing, Mr. Floyd is cautioned that he may not simply assert a basis 19 || for jurisdiction that is not based on the record. Additionally, his response to this order and any 20 asserted basis for subject matter jurisdiction must be warranted by existing law, and any factual 21 allegations must be made in a good faith belief as to the evidentiary support for them. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: April 9, 2025 24 , ee □ 25 Varin ®, De □□□□□□□ 6 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge 27 28