Leyb v. Tinder LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
NOY LEYB,
Petitioner,
v.
TINDER LLC f/k/a MATCH GROUP,
INC.,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-3059-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In response to this Court’s order questioning subject matter jurisdiction,
Petitioner Noy Leyb (“Petitioner”) filed an Amended Petition and Motion to Vacate
and Require Reasoned Decision for Arbitration Decision or, in the Alternative, for an
Order Compelling National Arbitration and Mediation Holdings, LLC to Submit the
Matter to an Arbitration Panel (the “Amended Petition’) (Doc. No. 17). The Court
specifically questioned whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy was satisfied.
Doc. No. 16. 	For the following reasons, the Court concludes that subject matter
jurisdiction 	is 	lacking 	and, 	therefore, 	this 	case 	must 	be 	DISMISSED 	without
prejudice. 	F ED . R. CIV . P. 12(h); Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 805 (5th
Cir. 1991) (“Failure adequately to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates
dismissal.”).
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

Federal courts “are courts of limited jurisdiction, defined (within constitutional
bounds) by federal statute.” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 7 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Accordingly, federal courts have “an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). 	The
party seeking the federal forum bears the burden of establishing the federal court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998).
In its previous order, the Court explained that the Supreme Court held that
federal courts cannot apply a “look-through approach” to determine subject matter
jurisdiction on a petition to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award under
Section 9 or 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Doc. No. 16 (citing Badgerow v. Walters,
596 U.S. 1, 9-12 (2022); see id. at 10-11 (explaining that the statutory language of
Section 4, which governs petitions to compel arbitration, expressly provides for the
“look-through approach” in assessing subject matter jurisdiction whereas Sections 9
and 10 “do not mention the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction at all” and, so, this
approach cannot apply under ordinary principles of statutory construction.)). On a
petition to vacate, affirm, or modify, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue
before the court is the enforceability of the arbitration award, not the underlying issues
in the arbitration. See Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9, 18. Thus, “a court may look only to the
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

application actually submitted to it in assessing its jurisdiction.” Id. at 5; see Ascension
Data, 105 F.4th 749, 754 (5th Cir. 2024) (recognizing Badgerow and affirming that
“[t]he only dispute properly before the district court” on a vacatur application is “the
enforceability of the arbitral award” and, so the court cannot look to underlying
arbitration demand for its subject matter jurisdiction.).
In the Amended Petition, Petitioner invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction,
alleging that each party is diverse in their citizenship and that the amount in
controversy 	exceeds 	$500,000. 	Doc. 	No. 	17 	at 	1-2. 	Petitioner 	properly 	alleged
complete diversity of the parties’ citizenship— Petitioner is a citizen of New York and
Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and of Texas. Id. 	Petitioner failed, however, to
establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Petitioner alleges the
following:
This 	Court 	has 	subject-matter 	jurisdiction 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1332(a)(2) because complete diversity exists and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The
arbitration decision dismissed Petitioner’s tort claims under the
Communications Decency Act and awarded no monetary relief. By
doing so, the arbitration award extinguished Petitioner’s claims for
compensatory damages, reputational harm, emotional distress, and
punitive damages. In actions seeking declaratory or equitable relief,
the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the right to
be protected or the injury to be prevented. See Farkas v. GMAC
Mortgage, L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013); Webb v.
Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 256 (5th Cir. 1996). In the context of
an action seeking vacatur of an arbitration award, this includes the
value of the legal rights affected by the award, including the value of
claims extinguished by the award and that would be revived if
vacatur were granted. Petitioner alleges in good faith that the value
of these extinguished claims exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the
amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

Doc. No. 17 at 1-2; see id.at 2 (“No party is a citizen of the same state, and the amount
in controversy exceeds $500,000.”); id. at 3 (“No Respondent is a citizen of the same
state that Plaintiff resides and the amount in controversy is $500,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, which exceeds the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).”).
The arbitrator found that Petitioner's claims "are barred by the Communications
Decency Act" and dismissed all of Petitioner's claims with no monetary award being
made. Doc. No. 1 at 123. In the Amended Petition, Petitioner asks the Court to: (1)
“vacate and compel the Arbitrator to provide a reasoned decision and brief statement
of the reasons for the award,” or, (2) in the alternative, issue “an order compelling
NAM, the governing body pursuant to Respondent’s [Terms of Service], to comply
with its own Appellate Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures, specifically Rule 13,
which requires the matter be referred to an Arbitration Panel of three (3) NAM
Neutrals selected from NAM’s Roster of Neutrals.” 	Doc. No. 17 at 12. 	Petitioner
claims “the value of the legal rights affected by the award, including the value of the
claims extinguished by the award” is the basis for the amount in controversy. See Doc.
No. 1 at 113-15 (Demand for Arbitration), 119 (Petitioner demanded damages “in
excess of $500,000” in the arbitration proceeding.).
Petitioner’s attempt to characterize this as akin to an action for declaratory
judgment or other equitable relief misses the mark. The binding case law could not be
clearer on this exact issue. The only dispute before this Court on this Amended Petition
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

is the enforceability of the arbitration award, and the Court is precluded from looking
through to the issues presented in the underlying arbitration and the demand made
therein for its subject matter jurisdiction. See Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 5; Ascension Data,
105 F.4th at 754; see also Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 12 (the “highly unusual” look-through
rule “locates jurisdiction not in the action actually before the court, but in another
controversy neither there nor ever meant to be.”). 	But that is exactly what Petitioner
asks this Court to do in determining whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy
is satisfied. See Shah v. Agarwal, Civ. Action No. 3:, 2025 WL 2256510, at *1-2 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 7, 2025)(Lindsay, J.) (arbitration award for $50,000 in attorneys' fees did
not meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy and the court found it could not
look through to the claims asserted and demand made in the underlying arbitration, as
petitioner requested, to satisfy that jurisdictional requirement.); cf. Badgerow, 596 U.S.
at 18 (“To be sure, Congress created an exception to those ordinary jurisdictional
principles for Section 4 petitions to compel. But it is one thing to make an exception,
quite another to extend that exception everywhere.”). 	The Court cannot find on the
Amended Petition that Petitioner has established the amount in controversy threshold
has been met.
The arbitration award “is no more than a contractual resolution of the parties’
dispute—a way of settling legal claims. And quarrels about legal settlements—even
settlements of federal claims—typically involve only state law, like disagreements about
other contracts.” Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 9. “Congress has not authorized a federal court
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

to adjudicate a Section 9 or 10 application just because the contractual dispute it
presents grew out of arbitrating different claims, turning on different law, that (save for
the parties’ agreement) could have been brought in federal court.” 	Id.at 12. 	Indeed,
“[a]pplications about arbitral decisions could and should follow the normal rules.” Id.
at 9.
Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing this Court’s diversity
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 12(h); Stafford, 945 F.2d at 805.
SO ORDERED.
Signed February 3rd
, 2026.
____________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03059-K Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>