166 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1999), 98-7082, Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc.

Docket Nº98-7082.
Citation166 F.3d 1243
Party NameMatt KASAP, Appellant, v. FOLGER NOLAN FLEMING & DOUGLAS, INC., et al., Appellees.
Case DateFebruary 12, 1999
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1243

166 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

Matt KASAP, Appellant,

v.

FOLGER NOLAN FLEMING & DOUGLAS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 98-7082.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

February 12, 1999

Argued Jan. 8, 1999.

Page 1244

John P. Connolly argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Harold Richard Mayberry, Jr.

Thomas O. Barnett argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Mitchell F. Dolin.

Before: SILBERMAN, SENTELLE, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge:

Appellant seeks reversal of the district court's decision dismissing his application to vacate an arbitration decision for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that it had no jurisdiction to consider appellant's application and affirm the dismissal.

I.

Matt Kasap is an experienced investor who maintained a nondiscretionary margin account with appellee Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc. Appellee Joseph E. Anderson, a Folger Nolan employee, was the registered representative for appellant's account. After Kasap lost what he estimated to be nearly one half million dollars in the account during a period of market decline in 1996, he filed a statement of claim with the National Association of Securities Dealers pursuant to his agreement with appellees to submit such a dispute to arbitration. He contended that appellees falsely represented the amount of his margin debit and account equity and failed to make adequate disclosures regarding his margin account, in violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's rules enforcing that section. Appellant claimed further that appellees' conduct violated state securities law and NASD rules of fair practice, and constituted a breach of contract, fraud, and deceit under state law.

An NASD arbitration panel held a two-day hearing at which, inter alia, Kasap questioned appellee Anderson about his substance abuse history during the period in which he handled appellant's account. After the close of the hearing, Kasap discovered evidence which he believed demonstrated that Anderson perjured himself before the panel, and requested that the panel reopen the record to consider the new evidence. The panel rejected the request, and later denied all of appellant's claims on the merits. Appellant

Page 1245

then filed in the district court an application to vacate the arbitration award in favor of appellees under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10 (1994). He argued that Anderson's alleged perjury enabled appellees to procure the award by fraud and undue means, id. § 10(a)(1), and that the panel's decision not to reopen the record constituted misconduct, id. § 10(a)(3). Appellees filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's application.

The district court granted appellees' motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Relying on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n. 32, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), and the Seventh Circuit's decision in Minor v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 94 F.3d 1103 (7th Cir.1996), the district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were not diverse, because the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create jurisdiction for the federal courts, and because the federal securities claims involved in the underlying arbitration do not supply an independent jurisdictional basis. Appellant challenges the district court's decision, arguing that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that, even if it did not, the district court erred insofar as it dismissed his application to vacate with prejudice.

II.

The Federal Arbitration Act creates several federal causes of action relating to arbitration agreements (to be initiated by "petition" or "application"), including an action under § 4 to compel arbitration, which provides,

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement....

9 U.S.C. § 4 (1994), and an action under § 10 to vacate an arbitrator's award, which provides,

(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration--

(1) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

(2) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.

(3) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

(4) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

(5) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.

(b) The United States district court for the district wherein an award was made that was issued pursuant to section 580 of title 5 may make an order vacating the award upon the application of a person, other than a party to the arbitration, who is adversely affected or aggrieved by the award, if the use of arbitration or the award is clearly inconsistent with the factors set forth in section 572 of title 5.

9 U.S.C. § 10 (1994). Notwithstanding the apparent federal causes of action thus devised, the Supreme Court has interpreted the statute as not itself bestowing jurisdiction on the federal district courts, nor permitting federal jurisdiction to be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994), the general statute conferring on federal district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the ...

Page 1246

laws ... of the United States." Id.; see Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 16 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 852, 79 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (describing the Act as "creat[ing] federal substantive law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • 305 F.Supp.2d 49 (D.D.C. 2004), Civ. A.01-1715, Meng v. Schwartz
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 6, 2004
    ...court of competent jurisdiction or in the same court upon proper jurisdictional grounds. See Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (holding that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is binding upon the jurisdictional issue litigated, b......
  • Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Price, 081211 NCWDC, 3:10-CV-382
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit Western District of North Carolina
    • August 12, 2011
    ...for federal jurisdiction." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25 n.32; accord Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Fisher v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 422 F.Supp.2d 889 (S.D. Ohio The FAA, in and of itself, cannot serve as the juri......
  • 388 F.Supp.2d 644 (D.S.C. 2005), C. A. 6 05-1029, Cole v. Long John Silver's Restaurants, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 2005
    ...Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 220 F.3d 22, 26 (2d Cir.2000) (same); Kasap v. Folger, Nolan, Fleming, & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C.Cir.1999) (same); Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1472 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Minor v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 94 F.3d 11......
  • 783 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009), C. A. 08-2214 (JDB), Pailes v. United States Peace Corps
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 2, 2009
    ...on subsequent attempts to bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction." Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citations omitted); see Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960, 122 S.Ct. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 cases
  • 305 F.Supp.2d 49 (D.D.C. 2004), Civ. A.01-1715, Meng v. Schwartz
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 6, 2004
    ...court of competent jurisdiction or in the same court upon proper jurisdictional grounds. See Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (holding that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is binding upon the jurisdictional issue litigated, b......
  • Sonic Automotive, Inc. v. Price, 081211 NCWDC, 3:10-CV-382
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit Western District of North Carolina
    • August 12, 2011
    ...for federal jurisdiction." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25 n.32; accord Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1246 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Fisher v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 422 F.Supp.2d 889 (S.D. Ohio The FAA, in and of itself, cannot serve as the juri......
  • 388 F.Supp.2d 644 (D.S.C. 2005), C. A. 6 05-1029, Cole v. Long John Silver's Restaurants, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 2005
    ...Greenberg v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 220 F.3d 22, 26 (2d Cir.2000) (same); Kasap v. Folger, Nolan, Fleming, & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1247 (D.C.Cir.1999) (same); Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1472 (11th Cir.1997) (same); Minor v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 94 F.3d 11......
  • 783 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009), C. A. 08-2214 (JDB), Pailes v. United States Peace Corps
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 2, 2009
    ...on subsequent attempts to bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction." Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, Inc., 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citations omitted); see Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960, 122 S.Ct. 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • The specificity of international arbitration: the case for FAA reform.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 36 Nbr. 4, October 2003
    • October 1, 2003
    ...jurisdiction. See PCS 2000 LP v. Romulus Telecomm, Inc., 148 F.3d 32, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1998); Kasap v. Folger Nolan Fleming & Douglas, 166 F.3d 1243, 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The existence of a federal question has been found in an allegation that the arbitrator "manifestly disregarde......