The Seventh Circuit’s decision in King v. Universal Health Services of Hartgrove, Inc., No. 23-3254, slip op. (7th Cir. August 5, 2024) (nonprecedential disposition), is yet another lesson about how important it is to take great care to ensure that subject-matter and appellate jurisdiction requirements are met. King may be a “nonprecedential disposition,” but that doesn’t mean one should disregard its lessons.
Background
The story begins back in December 2018 when employee A (the “Employee”) commenced an action (“Action I”) against employer B (the “Employer”) that asserted various claims, including for employment discrimination based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Employer moved under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to compel arbitration based on an agreement Employee signed at the commencement of employment. See 9 U.S.C. § 4.
The district court in Action I granted the motion and entered judgment in May 2020. We cannot tell from the Court’s brief opinion whether anyone requested a stay pending arbitration. (See our recent post on Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).)
The arbitration proceeded and the arbitrator made an award in favor of the Employer. Employee commenced a new district court action (“Action II”) in which it sought an order vacating the award. Around the same time, the Employer made a motion in Action I to confirm the award under FAA Section 9. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.
That prompted the Court in Action II to make an order consolidating Action I with Action II. The Court designated no lead case and maintained separate dockets for each Action.
The Court in Action I made an order granting the motion to confirm. More than a month later the Court in Action II entered judgment for the employer, stating “‘[n]o further action’ was needed regarding King’s motion to vacate the award in that case.” Slip op. at 2.
The employer filed a timely notice of appeal in Action II. The notice of appeal referenced the case numbers for Actions I and II, as well as the Action I Court’s 45-day-prior decision confirming the award.
The Action II Court Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Action I was apparently commenced by the Employee based on federal question jurisdiction, as one of the claims asserted was under the Americans Continue Reading »
