Order | Filed: July 10, 2026
| Entered: July 10, 2026
Adams v. Ross Stores Inc et al
Contract: Other Contract | Texas Northern
Order
ELECTRONIC ORDER Identifying Jurisdictional Deficiency.
"The district courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction, defined (within constitutional bounds) by federal statute." Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 7 (2022) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal courts are vested with subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," or where the case in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, or between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. &sect&sect 1331, 1332(a)(1)-(2). Federal courts "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction" when assessing subject matter jurisdiction. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, federal courts at every level have "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)).
Robert Adams, Sr. ("Petitioner") filed his Application to Vacate Arbitration Award and Notice for Order to Vacate Arbitration Award (the "Application") (Doc. No. 1) directly in federal court. In his Application, Petitioner expressly states that he does not believe this Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. Doc. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner claims that he filed his Application here "out of an abundance of caution" and has in fact filed this same Application in federal court in the Southern District of Texas and in state court in Harris County, Texas. Id. at 1-2. But Petitioner himself asserts that there is no diversity jurisdiction and no federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 4-11.
As the party seeking the federal forum, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenburg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). "[T]he FAA's 'authorization of a petition [to vacate an arbitration award] does not itself create jurisdiction. Rather, the federal court must have... an independent jurisdictional basis to resolve the matter.'" Ascension Data & Analytics, L.L.C. v. Pairprep, Inc., 105 F.4th 749, 753 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 4 (2022)). Thus, a petitioner requesting vacatur of an arbitration award "must identify a grant of jurisdiction, apart from [the relevant FAA section] itself, conferring access to a federal forum." Ascension, 105 F.4th at 753 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 8). If the petitioner is unable to do so, "the action belongs in state court." Id. (citing Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 8); see also id. ("[S]tate courts have a prominent role to play as enforcers of agreements to arbitrate.") (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Furthermore, in determining whether an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists, the Supreme Court has clarified that a federal court cannot apply the "look-through approach" in determining its subject matter jurisdiction on a petition to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award under Section 9 or 10. Badgerow, 596 U.S at 9-12. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue before the court on such a petition is "the enforceability of an arbitral award," not the issues presented in the arbitration demand." Id. at 9. The Supreme Court held that "a court may look only to the application actually submitted to it in assessing its jurisdiction." Id. at 5; accord Ascension, 105 F.4th at 754.
Petitioner disavows an independent basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and none is apparent from the Application. See Ascension, 105 F.4th at 755 ("Under Badgerow, when a party applies to a district court to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitral award, it must establish on the face of the application a basis for subject matter jurisdiction separate and apart from the FAA.") (emphasis added). Indeed, there is no federal question jurisdiction on the face of the Application. See generally Doc. No. 1. Thus, the only basis on which this Court could arguably exercise subject matter jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect 1332(a). However, diversity jurisdiction also appears to be lacking. The citizenship of each party has not been properly alleged but, more significantly, it appears that the threshold amount in controversy cannot be satisfied. See, e.g., Doc. No. 1 at 4-11; see Doc. No. 12 at 8-9 (order entered by the arbitrator "is a take-nothing award against [Petitioner] on his negligence claims ($0 damage... (truncated)