Brett Andrew, a/k/a House of Nelson v. Lori Talbot; Keri Ann Yoder; Donald Corwin Jackson; Ashley Morgan Burgemeister

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
BRETT ANDREW, a/k/a House of Nelson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORI TALBOT; KERI ANN YODER;
DONALD CORWIN JACKSON;
ASHLEY MORGAN BURGEMEISTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-1424
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01053-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant brought this action in the District of Colorado seeking
to confirm an alleged $20,000,000 arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.
In a well-reasoned report and recommendation (“R&R”), Magistrate Judge Gallagher
recommended the action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After
overruling Plaintiff’s objections, the district court wholly adopted the R&R and
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 13, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1424 Document: 010110464462 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
dismissed the case. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed four post-judgment motions, each of
which the district court denied. This appeal follows.
On appeal, Plaintiff alleges the district court erred in concluding it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction because, by his argument, subject matter jurisdiction is
provided for in 9 U.S.C. § 9. In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Gallagher expressly
addressed and rejected this argument, and we agree with his conclusion. The Federal
Arbitration Act does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts absent an
independent jurisdictional basis. See Comanche Indian Tribe of Okla. v. 49, L.L.C.,
391 F.3d 1129, 1131 n.4 (10th Cir. 2004). And, as Magistrate Judge Gallagher
explained, there are only two statutory bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction:
(1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff presented no basis for jurisdiction under either
section in the district court and does not do so on appeal.
Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose
in writing at length. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s appellate
brief and discern no reversible error. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for the same reasons set forth in the R&R and the district
court’s order adopting the same. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1424 Document: 010110464462 Date Filed: 01/13/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --