Complot v. American Honda Finance Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oliver Complot,
Plaintiff,
v.
American Honda Finance Corporation, et
al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02647-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Awards (“Motion”). (Doc.
29, Mot.) For the reasons described below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion1 for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction over cases that involve either a controversy
between citizens of different states (“diversity jurisdiction”) or a question of federal law
(“federal question jurisdiction”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A federal court is “obligated
to consider sua sponte whether [it has] subject matter jurisdiction” in each case and to
dismiss a case when subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116
(internal quotations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff
requests that the Court vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act
1 Plaintiff’s Motion was filed after this Court granted him leave to file an amended
pleading. (Doc. 28). While titled a “Motion,” the Court construes it as a pleading that is
governed by the pleading standards and rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e).
Case 2:25-cv-02647-JJT Document 33 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10. (Mot. at 1.) A claim arising under the FAA, however, cannot
establish federal question jurisdiction on its own. Rather, “parties seeking relief under the
FAA [must] establish an independent jurisdictional basis for a federal court's jurisdiction.”
Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Hall St. Assocs.,
L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008)). Plaintiff asserts no other federal law that
evokes federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction must exist for this
matter to continue before this Court.
In the case of diversity jurisdiction, a party must demonstrate that “the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity of citizenship and “is not available when any plaintiff is a citizen of the
same State as any defendant.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 366
(1978). When determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists for claims arising under 9
U.S.C. § 10, a federal court may only review “the face of the [complaint] itself.” Badgerow
v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 9 (2022). Courts cannot “look through” the face of the complaint to
jurisdictional facts of the underlying dispute from which the original arbitration award
originated. Id. at 11–12.
Here, Plaintiff fails to state any facts on the face of the Motion that creates diversity
jurisdiction. Nowhere does Plaintiff allege the citizenship of the parties, including himself.
Plaintiff also fails to clearly state an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. Absent
these key jurisdictional facts, the Court has no power to exercise over this matter. This
defect is curable, and the Court will dismiss the Motion with leave to amend. No later than
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a single complaint that
comports with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 8 and 10 and sets forth a short and plain
statement that confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion continues to test the limits of Rules 8(a), and
10. While a marked improvement from his earlier 100-page filing (Doc. 1), the current 57-
page Motion appears to frustrate Rule 8’s demand for “short and plain” statements. Should
Case 2:25-cv-02647-JJT Document 33 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint again, Plaintiff should number each
paragraph consecutively, state the grounds for relief in a concise fashion, and title the
document the “Second Amended Complaint.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate
Arbitration Awards (Doc. 29).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to file a complaint, if he so
chooses, no later than fourteen (14) days of this Order. The amended complaint should
comply with the pleading standards set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7, 8 and
10, have consecutively numbered paragraphs, and be titled the “Second Amended
Complaint.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this matter
without further order of this Court if Plaintiff does not file a complaint no later than
fourteen (14) days of this Order.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02647-JJT Document 33 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3