Citifinancial Corp. v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 15 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04-60979.,04-60979.
• Citation: 453 F.3d 245
• Parties: CITIFINANCIAL CORP.; CitiFinancial, Inc., formerly known as Citifinancial of Mississippi, Inc.; and American Health and Life Insurance Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Billy HARRISON and Kim Harrison, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 245

453 F.3d 245

CITIFINANCIAL CORP.; CitiFinancial, Inc., formerly known as Citifinancial of Mississippi, Inc.; and American Health and Life Insurance Co., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Billy HARRISON and Kim Harrison, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 04-60979.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 15, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John R. Chiles (argued), William J. Long, Richard C. Keller, Burr & Forman, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Louis G. Baine, III (argued), Marcus Alfred Treadway, III, Brian Ashley Clark, Page, Kruger & Holland, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.^*

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

This case involves two separate civil actions concerning the same dispute between essentially the same parties, both actions ultimately residing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi before two different Article III judges. In one of the actions, the judge compelled Billy and Kim Harrison to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and stayed proceedings on their substantive claims then pending before the other federal judge. In the other action, the judge disposed of other parties and "administratively dismissed" the remainder of the case. The Harrisons appeal, and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I

Billy and Kim Harrison, both residents of Mississippi, obtained a home-renovation loan from CitiFinancial pursuant to a loan agreement, signed by the Harrisons and by Mario Arellano, a CitiFinancial employee. Despite the loan agreement's arbitration clause, the Harrisons, Annie Newton, and Bobby McLaurin brought state-law claims against CitiFinancial, Arellano, and American Health and Life Insurance Company, CitiFinancial's wholly owned insurer, in a Mississippi state court.¹

CitiFinancial, Arellano, and American Health removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that defendant Arellano, also a resident of Mississippi, was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The removed case fell to Judge Barbour. The Harrisons moved to remand, but Judge Barbour withheld ruling pending this Court's en banc decision in Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.²

With a wary eye on the issue of fraudulent joinder to be decided in Smallwood and wanting to proceed to arbitration, defendants CitiFinancial and American Health, but not Arellano, the local defendant, filed a separate civil action against the Harrisons—and only the Harrisons — in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. That matter fell to Judge Wingate. There, CitiFinancial and American Health petitioned the district court to compel arbitration under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act and sought a stay of the proceedings in Judge Barbour's court.

Judge Wingate granted CitiFinancial and American Health's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Harrisons' claims were covered by a valid arbitration clause. As requested by CitiFinancial and American Health, Judge Wingate's order compelling arbitration stated, "All matters in civil action 3:03-cv-523BN [the Barbour action] pertaining to [the Harrisons'] claim are hereby stayed." Judge Wingate entered a final judgment, and the Harrisons filed a timely notice of appeal from Judge Wingate's order. That appeal was docketed in this Court as Number 04-60979, and it is the matter currently before this Court.

Following this Court's ruling in Smallwood, Judge Barbour concluded that resolution of the motion to remand in the original action was unnecessary because Judge Wingate had stayed the Harrisons' substantive claims. CitiFinancial and American Health, but not Arellano, filed a motion to compel plaintiff Annie Newton, who was not a party to the proceeding in Judge Wingate's court, to arbitration, which Judge Barbour granted. Judge Barbour noted that Arellano was not a party to the motion to compel and ordered Newton to inform the court within ten days whether she intended to proceed against Arellano. Newton did not respond.

CitiFinancial, American Health, and Arellano then filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Judge Barbour granted the motion, noting that the Harrisons were compelled to arbitration by Judge Wingate, that Newton was compelled to arbitration in a previous ruling, and that Newton failed to inform the court that she intended to pursue claims against Arellano. As such, Judge Barbour entered a final judgment dismissing all claims against Arellano. Then, Judge Barbour ordered that the case be "administratively dismissed from the active docket of this Court" subject to "any remaining party['s]" motion "to re-open this case if further judicial intervention is necessary to enforce the rulings of this Court, or to enforce the rulings of the arbitrator." No party has appealed from Judge Barbour's order.³

II

We raise jurisdiction on our own.⁴ Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration act limits our jurisdiction over orders relating to arbitration. We can hear an appeal from "a final decision relating to arbitration," but we cannot hear an appeal from an interlocutory order "granting a stay of any action under section 3 of this title."⁵ "Final decision" takes its "well-developed and longstanding" meaning— that is, a decision is final when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute the judgment."⁶ Our jurisdiction turns on whether we look only to Judge Wingate's order compelling arbitration, or whether we read Judge Wingate's order in light of the proceedings in Judge Barbour's court.

A

If we only examine Judge Wingate's order, then we would have jurisdiction to consider the Harrisons' appeal. The only issue before Judge Wingate was CitiFinancial and American Health's petition to compel arbitration under section 3 of the FAA. That petition was granted, and Judge Wingate entered a final judgment compelling arbitration. Twice, we have resolved this issue, both times concluding that we had jurisdiction. This is so, because "the federal action did not contain any substantive claims" and "there was nothing for the district court to dismiss."⁷ Put another way, once the court compelled arbitration, there was nothing more for it to do but execute the judgment.⁸

B

If we examine Judge Wingate's order in light of the action in Judge Barbour's court, then we would not have jurisdiction to consider the Harrisons' appeal. Judge Wingate did two things: first, he ordered the Harrisons to arbitration; and second, he stayed proceedings in Judge Barbour's court. Judge Barbour respected that ruling, and the Harrisons' claims are still pending there. Taken together, we have an order compelling arbitration and a stay of the underlying proceedings. Consistent with section 16 of the FAA, "An arbitration order entering a stay, as opposed to a dismissal, is not an appealable order."⁹

That conclusion is somewhat complicated by the later history of the case. Judge Barbour dismissed with prejudice all claims against Arellano, but he was not a party to CitiFinancial and American Health's independent action and is not a party to the present appeal. Judge Barbour then stated, "It is further ordered that this case is hereby administratively dismissed from the active docket of this Court. However, any remaining party may move to re-open this case if further judicial intervention is necessary to enforce the rulings of this Court, or to enforce the rulings of the arbitrator."

We must determine if an "administratively dismissed" case is a "final decision" under the FAA, and we conclude that it is not. To be sure, the case was not dismissed using the usual language of dismissal, but we are not bound by the district court's words.¹⁰ Further, on two occasions, we have held that when a district court "administratively closes" a case, that action was equivalent to a stay, prohibiting appellate review.¹¹ This is so, because administratively closing a case is merely a case-management tool used by district court judges to obtain an accurate count of active cases.¹² Just as an administratively closed case can be "reopened upon request of the parties or on the court's own motion,"¹³ Judge Barbour's order administratively dismissing the Harrisons' substantive claims states that "any remaining party may move to re-open" the case if judicial intervention is necessary. The Harrisons' substantive claims removed from the "active docket," by definition then resided on an "inactive docket." In contrast, a fully "dismissed" case is removed from the docket, terminated indefinitely, and restarted only upon the filing of a new complaint. That is not the case here. Under these limited circumstances, the Harrisons' "administratively dismissed" case is in the same posture as an "administratively closed" case. Therefore, should we consider Judge Wingate's order in light of the proceedings in Judge Barbour's court, we would not have a "final decision" appealable under section 16 of the FAA.

C

As illustrated, how we view the proceedings below determines the jurisdictional question, and we conclude that Judge Wingate's order must be reviewed in light of the proceedings in Judge Barbour's court. First, examining both proceedings is most consistent with the strong federal interest—expressed by both the Congress and the Supreme Court—in favor of arbitration.¹⁴ Examining both pushes this case to arbitration quickly, foregoing delay while the merits are considered on appeal. Moreover, we have two orders from two Article III judges of the same United States District Court. "[J]urisdiction is lodged in a court, not in a person."¹⁵ Two points must be stressed: first, Judge Barbour respected Judge Wingate's stay order, entering various orders...