Program v. Alashry
| Decision Date | 26 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17-2557 (RDM) |
| Parties | NATIONAL RESIDENT MATCHING PROGRAM, Plaintiff, v. MAHMOUD ALASHRY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to remand, Dkt. 7, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Plaintiff National Resident Matching Program ("NRMP") originally filed suit to vacate an arbitration award in favor of Defendant Mahmoud Alashry ("Dr. Alashry") in the D.C. Superior Court. Dkt. 9-2 at 2. On November 28, 2017, Dr. Alashry removed the case to this Court. Dkt. 1. NRMP argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement specifies that D.C. law governs this dispute, and, because the amount in controversy is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The Court disagrees and will, accordingly, DENY Plaintiff's motion to remand, Dkt. 7.
NRMP is an Illinois-based, not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Dkt. 1 at 1. NRMP "provide[s] a service by which it matches medical school students and graduates to positions in United States graduate medical education residency and fellowship training programs." Id. Dr. Alashry is a citizen of Egypt—where he obtained his medical degree—and currently resides in Florida. Dkt. 1-1 at 1 (Alashry Decl. ¶¶ 1-2). In 2014, Dr. Alashry began a post-doctoral research fellowship at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Id. (Alashry Decl. ¶ 3). During his fellowship, Dr. Alashry "completed the United States Medical Licensing Examination and obtained a certification from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates." Id. He then applied to participate in NRMP's 2016 medical residency matching program ("Main Residency Match"), and, through that program, matched to an internal medicine residency program at the North Florida Regional Medical Center ("NFRMC") on March 18, 2016. Id. at 2 (Alashry Decl. ¶ 5); Dkt. 10-2 at 11.
To participate in the Main Residency Match, Dr. Alashry entered into an agreement with NRMP ("the Match Agreement"). Dkt. 5-2. Section 4.4 of the Match Agreement requires that each applicant provide "complete, timely, and accurate information" throughout the match process, and states that "NRMP is authorized to take appropriate action," specified in a later provision, if "NRMP believes it has credible evidence that an applicant . . . has violated the . . . [a]greement." Id. at 21. On February 22, 2016—before his match date—Dr. Alashry was arrested for solicitation of prostitution in Minnesota and was subsequently charged on April 1, 2016. Dkt. 10-2 at 11-12; Dkt. 10-2 at 45 (Arb. Award ¶¶ 33-35). He proceeded with the match, however, and did not disclose this information to either NRMP or the program he matched with—NFRMC—until May 23, 2016, when he emailed the program director. Id. at 46 (Arb. Award ¶ 39), id. at 97.
Due to his arrest and pending charge, Dr. Alashry was not eligible for a J-1 visa and could not start his residency with NFRMC in June 2016; consequently, NFRMC applied to NRMP for a waiver of its match commitment to Dr. Alashry, which NRMP granted. Id. (Arb. Award ¶ 42). NRMP then conducted an investigation into whether Dr. Alashry's actionsviolated section 4.4 of the Match Agreement and determined that they did. Id. (Arb. Award ¶¶ 45-46). In accordance with section 8.2.1 of the Match Agreement, NRMP issued a Panel Report imposing the following sanctions:
[T]he NRMP is notifying [Dr. Alashry's medical] school of this violation and asking that it become a part of his permanent record. The NRMP also bars Dr. Alashry for one year from accepting or starting a position in any program sponsored by a Match-participating institution . . . . , bars him from participation in future NRMP Matches for two years, and will identify him as a Match violator in the NRMP's Registration, Ranking, and Results (R3) system for two years, effective immediately.
Id. at 47 (Arb. Award ¶ 47). Dr. Alashry contested NRMP's finding of culpability. Id. at 37 (Arb. Award ¶ 7).
On September 9, 2016, Dr. Alashry filed a demand for arbitration, pursuant to section 15 of the Match Agreement, with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ("ICDR"), requesting a declaratory judgment that (1) he did not violate the Match Agreement, (2) the NRMP lacked jurisdiction to sanction him for conduct that occurred after the conclusion of the Match process, and (3) all of the sanctions in the Panel Report should be vacated. Id. NRMP responded that the sanctions "imposed [were] appropriate." Id. at 38 (Arb. Award ¶ 10). ICDR appointed Elliot E. Polebaum as the sole arbitrator. Id. at 37-38 (Arb. Award ¶¶ 10-11). The arbitrator conducted a hearing on May 16, 2017, and permitted the parties to submit post-hearing briefs and replies. Id. at 38-39 (Arb. Award ¶¶ 14, 16-18). On July 13, 2017, the arbitrator issued an award (1) vacating the "findings of violation" in the Panel Report "except insofar as the Report's violation finding encompasses a violation for untimely disclosure of the pending criminal charges against Dr. Alashry during the period after April 1, 2016;" and (2) vacating the"sanctions . . . for violations of section 4.4 of the Agreement [as] arbitrary and capricious." Id. at 59 (Arb. Award ¶¶ 90-91).
On October 13, 2017, NRMP filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Dkt. 9-1; Dkt. 9-2. In lieu of filing a response, Dr. Alashry removed the case to this Court asserting both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 at 4-7. NRMP now moves to remand, arguing that Dr. Alashry cannot show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required to establish diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), or that the case arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 7. NRMP does not contest that Dr. Alashry has otherwise complied with the requirements for removal.
A defendant may remove a case to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The fact that the state court—or, here, the D.C. Superior Court—might have concurrent jurisdiction over NRMP's claim is of no moment; if the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction, and if Congress has not expressly precluded removal, the defendant may elect to litigate in the federal forum. See Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 697-98 (2003); 14B Charles Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3721, at 2-3 (4th ed. 2009). For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that, as a result, it need not address whether it has diversity jurisdiction. Because the Court hasjurisdiction, and because NRMP does not contest that Dr. Alashry complied with the procedural requirements for removal, the Court will deny NRMP's motion to remand.1
The parties agree that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ("New York Convention"), 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., provides federal district courts with jurisdiction over arbitration agreements and awards that "fall under" the Convention. See id. § 203 (). Moreover, although the parties do not focus on 9 U.S.C. § 205, that provision is also of particular relevance here: it provides federal courts with removal jurisdiction over proceedings that fall under the Convention. See id. (). Rather than question that the Convention provides for federal jurisdiction, NRMP argues, instead, that the Convention does not apply here.
In particular, NRMP contends that its arbitration with Dr. Alashry does not "fall under" the New York Convention because the Convention "specifically carve[s] out awards that are 'entirely domestic in scope.'" Dkt. 7 at 11 (quoting Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. P'ship, Inc. v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 1999)). The Court disagrees. The award at issue here is not "entirely domestic" because—as NRMP concedes—Dr. Alashry is a citizen of Egypt. Dkt. 1-1 at 1 (Alashry Decl. ¶ 1). As such, the plain language of the New York Convention expressly embraces the award. Section 202 provides that an "arbitral award arising out of a legal relationship, . . . which is considered as commercial . . . , falls under the Convention" unless it is "between citizens of the United States" and does not "involve[] property located abroad, envisage[] performance or enforcement abroad, or ha[ve] some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states." 9 U.S.C. § 202. Based on the statutory language, this Court has set forth a four-factor test:
An arbitration award falls under the New York Convention if [1] the award arises from a commercial legal relationship between the parties; [2] there was a written agreement to arbitrate disputes arising from that relationship; [3] the agreement provided for arbitration proceedings to take place in a signatory country to the New York Convention; and [4] at least one of the parties is not an American citizen.
Newco Ltd. v. Gov't of Belize, 156 F. Supp. 3d 79, 81 (D.D.C. 2015). This case satisfies all four requirements. The award arises from a commercial legal relationship between NRMP and Dr. Alashry; the Match Agreement contains an arbitration clause, Dkt. 5-2 at 35; the agreement specifies that arbitration proceedings shall take place in Washington D.C., id.; and Dr. Alashry is an Egyptian citizen, Dkt. 1-1 at 1 (Alashry Decl. ¶ 1).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial