ADVOCAT INC. v. BLANCHARD, 4:11CV00895 JLH. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120406914
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. The plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking to compel arbitration on December 19, 2011. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss contending that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction and because complete diversity did not exist. The defendants then filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2012, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P.
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. The plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking to compel arbitration on December 19, 2011. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss contending that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction and because complete diversity did not exist. The defendants then filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2012, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 1..
More
ORDER
J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking to compel arbitration on December 19, 2011. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss contending that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction and because complete diversity did not exist. The defendants then filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2012, as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). All plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are citizens of different states than the defendant. Furthermore, the amended complaint seeks an order compelling arbitration of a controversy exceeding the value of seventy-five thousand dollars. See Northport Health Servs. of Ark., LLC v. Rutherford, 605 F.3d 483 (2010). Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT. Document #3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
