Goodman

Goodman v. CIBC Oppenheimer & Co.

Good Law
131 F. Supp. 2d 1180·2001 WL 135401·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1527
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 12, 2001CV 00-9588-GAFCalifornia1,750 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feess, J.

AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Goodman, a customer of CIBC Oppenheimer & Co., arbitrated a variety of securities fraud claims against Oppenheimer and their employee, defendant Mirco Teta, before an NASD arbitration panel. Having sought nearly $3,000,000 in damages, but achieving an award of only $74,030.75, Goodman petitions this Court to vacate the award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act on the ground that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law. The Court need not reach the merits of Goodman’s claim because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Though the parties are diverse, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional minimum. And though the parties are proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act, that act does not confer federal question jurisdiction over the dispute, nor is there a federal question raised in the substantive dispute presented in this proceeding. Hence, the petition must be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case.

II.

DISCUSSION

Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction with no “inherent” subject…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.