Regis Corp. and The Barbers, Hairstyling for Men & Women, Inc. v. Cthulhu Hair, Inc. and Jeffrey Brewer

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION REGIS CORP. and THE BARBERS, § HAIRSTYLING FOR § MEN & WOMEN, INC., § § Movants, § § Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-1862-X v. § § CTHULHU HAIR, INC. and § JEFFREY BREWER, § § Respondents. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Movants Regis Corporation and The Barbers, Hairstyling for Men & Women, Inc.’s (collectively, “Movants”) Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 7). Having considered the motion and applicable law, the motion is DENIED. Furthermore, the Movant’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons outlined below. Before reviewing the Movants’ arguments in its Motion, the Court must first confirm its jurisdiction, even sua sponte.1 That is because “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute . . . which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.”2 “Without jurisdiction the 1 Green Valley Special Util. Dist. v. City of Schertz, 969 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir. 2020) (“This court has a continuing obligation to assure itself of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary.” (cleaned up)); Louisiana v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 90 F.4th 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2024) (“Jurisdiction is always first.” (cleaned up)). 2 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (cleaned up). court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”3 Under the Federal Arbitration Act “at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order

confirming the award.”4 The Court must determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires a party to move for confirmation within one year of the award or permits the Court to confirm an award beyond the one-year period. For instance, in another Federal Arbitration Act case, the Fifth Circuit mentioned that the motion “was filed within one year as required by 9 U.S.C. § 9.”5 The Fifth Circuit’s use of “required” instead of “permitted” is indicative that an action cannot be filed after a year. And the Second Circuit has also interpreted the Federal

Arbitration Act to only allow arbitration awards to be confirmed within the one-year window.6 Lastly, a judge in the Southern District of Texas has also “conclude[ed] that the one-year period in section 9 of the [Federal Arbitration Act] is mandatory.”7 Here, the final arbitration award was entered on December 8, 2021.8 But Movants waited to file their petition to confirm the award until July 16, 2025.9 Therefore, Movants are certainly outside Federal Arbitration Act’s one-year period

for seeking confirmation. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. 3 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (cleaned up). 4 Id. (emphasis added). 5 Bernstein Seawell & Kove v. Bosarge, 813 F.2d 726, 731 (5th Cir. 1987). 6 Photopaint Techs., LLC v. Smartlens Corp., 335 F.3d 152, 161 (2d Cir. 2003) (“We agree with the district court’s ruling that the FAA imposes a one-year statute of limitations.”). 7 FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Gachiengu, 571 F.Supp.2d 799, 804 (S.D. Tex. 2008). 8 Doc. 1-1. 9 Doc. 1. The motion for default judgment is DENIED. Movants’ complaint, which the Court construes as a motion to confirm the arbitration award, is barred by the Federal Arbitration Act’s one-year time limit and is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Final judgment shall be issued by a separate Order. IT ISSO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2026.

pRanm 5 STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE