Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-1239-D.
July 2, 2004
ORDER
The magistrate judge filed on June 16, 2004 his report and recommendation, in which he recommends that plaintiff's June 8, 2004 petition to United States Court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration and motion to abate proceedings in state court be denied. The court adopts the recommendation, although it does so on an additional ground. The court also advises plaintiff that he must demonstrate why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
According to plaintiff's pro se petition, there are Texas citizens on both sides in this matter. See Pet. ¶¶ 1, 2. This court cannot therefore exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Additionally, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") does not alone confer jurisdiction on a federal court. See Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. v. Pitts Farms, Inc., 276 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff must establish federal question jurisdiction on a basis other than the FAA. Id. As noted, plaintiff cannot demonstrate jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. In his petition, plaintiff cites as the basis for this court's jurisdiction § 14.11 of the agreement on which he relies. Even assuming that this agreement — which is between two other parties — applies to plaintiff, § 14.12 (the correct provision) is a forum selection clause, not one that confers subject matter jurisdiction on this court.
In fact, Business Ideas, Inc. withdrew its motion to intervene on the ground that granting the motion would defeat diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff's June 8, 2004 petition to United States Court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration and motion to abate proceedings in state court. The court also directs plaintiff to file a response no later than July 22, 2004 that demonstrates why this court has subject matter jurisdiction. If he fails to respond, or his response fails to demonstrate that this court has subject matter jurisdiction, the court will dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.