Floyd v. Crunch Fitness - San Jose

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 MICHAEL FLOYD, Case No. 24-cv-08314-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 10 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

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 Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)2 does 18 not itself create federal jurisdiction; rather, a federal court must have an independent basis on 19 which to exercise jurisdiction. See Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 4 (2022). The Court issued 20 an order to show cause inviting the parties’ responses on the question of whether the Court has 21 subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See Dkt. No. 28; see also Dkt. No. 25. 22 As noted in the order to show cause, a federal court does not “look through” the petition 23 pending before it to the underlying arbitration to determine its jurisdiction; instead a court “may 24 look only to the application actually submitted to it in assessing its jurisdiction.” Badgerow, 596 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 U.S. at 5; see also Tesla, Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560-61 (9th Cir. 2025) (same). In the 2 || present case, Mr. Floyd’s petition invokes federal question jurisdiction based on his assertion of 3 federal claims in the underlying arbitration. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 9 at 2. However, as 4 || discussed above, the presence of federal claims in the underlying arbitration is not a basis for the 5 Court’s jurisdiction over this action. See Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 5; Tesla, 134 F.4th at 560-61. 6 || Mr. Floyd did not assert diversity jurisdiction, and jurisdictional facts establishing the basis for 7 || diversity jurisdiction do not appear on the face of Mr. Floyd’s petition in any event. For its part, 8 Crunch Fit concedes that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. See Dkt. No. 9 |} 28. 10 Accordingly, this action must be dismissed. The parties have not provided the Court with 11 any basis to conclude otherwise, as the deadlines for the parties’ responses to the order to show 12 || cause have passed, and the Court has not received any responses to that order. This action is 13 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: May 1, 2025 16 Varga ®, Qe □□□□□□□ Virginia K. DeMarchi Z 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28