Happe v. Block, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CHLOE HAPPE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00622-MTS ) BLOCK, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Federal Arbitration Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts. See Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Johnson, 952 F.3d 978, 980 n.2 (8th Cir. 2020). Therefore, before the Court can determine whether to stay the proceedings here pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay, the Court must be assured it has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) as asserted in the Notice of Removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Brooks v. City of Des Moines, 844 F.3d 978, 979 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Lack of the jurisdiction of the subject matter of litigation cannot be waived by the parties or ignored by the court.” (quoting Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 476 (8th Cir. 2004))); cf. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., v. Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining “[t]he express terms of the [FAA] do not allow a district court to abstain from granting relief in cases where its jurisdiction is proper” (emphasis added)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion Seeking Clarification, Doc. [21], is GRANTED. The Court will not rule on the Joint Motion to Stay, Doc. [16], until it has ruled on the Motion to Remand, Doc. [15].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file any opposition to the Motion to Remand, Doc. [15], no later than Tuesday, June 18, 2024.

Dated this 5th day of June 2024. Th of THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE _2-