Bruno v. Abeyta

          ORDER

          David G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge

         Plaintiff P. Leonard Bruno filed a motion to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., (“FAA”) (Doc. 1), and a motion to enforce an existing temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendant Gary Paul Abeyta (Doc. 2). On May 30, 2018, the Court advised Plaintiff to serve the Defendant before the service expiration date on July 11, 2018, and denied other pending motions without prejudice. Doc. 12. Plaintiff then filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its May 30 order. Doc. 14.

         Plaintiff's motion has caused the Court to look more closely at this matter and the issues it raises. The Court will provide some general observations, and then ask Plaintiff to respond to several specific questions.

         I. General Observations.

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Domestic Relations.

         The Court has an obligation to determine that it has subject matter jurisdiction before acting. Plaintiff's arguments in this matter appear to concern domestic relations - his relationship with his former husband and related partnerships. The subject of domestic relations “belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581 (1979) (citing In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)). “Federal courts repeatedly have declined to assert jurisdiction over divorces that presented no federal question.” Id. “While rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.” Elk Grove United School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 13 (2004). In the absence of a substantial federal question, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising out of state family law. Id.; De-Amor v. Cabalar, No. 14-00272 LEK-BMK, 2014 WL 2812881, at *3 (D. Haw. June 23, 2014).

         B. Application to Vacate Arbitration.

         Among other requests, Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate an arbitration award. Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 14 at 1.

         1. The Federal Arbitration Act.

         The FAA provides that a district court, in the district where an arbitration award was made, may issue an order vacating the award:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;

(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

9 U.S.C. § 10. A court may also direct a rehearing by the arbitrators if “an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to ...