Oliver Complot v. American Honda Finance Corporation, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02647
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Oliver Complot, No. CV-25-02647-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 American Honda Finance Corporation, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Awards (“Motion”). (Doc. 16 29, Mot.) For the reasons described below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion1 for 17 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 Federal courts have limited jurisdiction over cases that involve either a controversy 19 between citizens of different states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law 20 (“federal question jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A federal court is “obligated 21 to consider sua sponte whether [it has] subject matter jurisdiction” in each case and to 22 dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116 23 (internal quotations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 24 Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under 25 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff 26 requests that the Court vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act 27 1 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed after this Court granted him leave to file an amended 28 pleading. (Doc. 28). While titled a “Motion,” the Court construes it as a pleading that is governed by the pleading standards and rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). 1 (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10. (Mot. at 1.) A claim arising under the FAA, however, cannot 2 establish federal question jurisdiction on its own. Rather, “parties seeking relief under the 3 FAA [must] establish an independent jurisdictional basis for a federal court's jurisdiction.” 4 Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Hall St. Assocs., 5 L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008)). Plaintiff asserts no other federal law that 6 evokes federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction must exist for this 7 matter to continue before this Court. 8 In the case of diversity jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate that “the matter in 9 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 10 between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires 11 complete diversity of citizenship and “is not available when any plaintiff is a citizen of the 12 same State as any defendant.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 366 13 (1978). When determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists for claims arising under 9 14 U.S.C. § 10, a federal court may only review “the face of the [complaint] itself.” Badgerow 15 v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 9 (2022). Courts cannot “look through” the face of the complaint to 16 jurisdictional facts of the underlying dispute from which the original arbitration award 17 originated. Id. at 11–12. 18 Here, Plaintiff fails to state any facts on the face of the Motion that creates diversity 19 jurisdiction. Nowhere does Plaintiff allege the citizenship of the parties, including himself. 20 Plaintiff also fails to clearly state an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. Absent 21 these key jurisdictional facts, the Court has no power to exercise over this matter. This 22 defect is curable, and the Court will dismiss the Motion with leave to amend. No later than 23 fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a single complaint that 24 comports with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 8 and 10 and sets forth a short and plain 25 statement that confer jurisdiction upon this Court. 26 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion continues to test the limits of Rules 8(a), and 27 10. While a marked improvement from his earlier 100-page filing (Doc. 1), the current 57- 28 page Motion appears to frustrate Rule 8’s demand for “short and plain” statements. Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint again, Plaintiff should number each || paragraph consecutively, state the grounds for relief in a concise fashion, and title the 3 || document the “Second Amended Complaint.” 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Awards (Doc. 29). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to file a complaint, if he so || chooses, no later than fourteen (14) days of this Order. The amended complaint should 8 || comply with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 8 and 10, have consecutively numbered paragraphs, and be titled the “Second Amended 10 || Complaint.” 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this matter 12 || without further order of this Court if Plaintiff does not file a complaint no later than 13 || fourteen (14) days of this Order. 14 Dated this 31st day of October, 2025. CN

16 hlee— Unifga StatesDistrict Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-