ANDREW v. WALZL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.2021-01-27No. No. 20-1425

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal and denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding no useful purpose in revisiting arguments already thoroughly addressed and rejected in the prior appellate decision.

A self-represented plaintiff appealed a district court order dismissing his action to confirm an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that federal arbitration law provided the necessary jurisdictional basis, but this court had already rejected identical arguments in a prior appeal. In the current appeal, the plaintiff filed three post-judgment motions and raised no new legal theories, facts, or arguments beyond those previously decided.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether federal arbitration law provides subject matter jurisdiction for arbitration award confirmation actions
Whether a party may relitigate identical arguments in successive appeals
Effect of prior appellate rejection on subsequent motions raising the same claims

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed a district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the subsequent denial of three post-judgment motions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking to confirm an alleged $6,898,000 arbitration award against Defendant under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirmed. See Nelson v. Walzl, 829 F. Appx 872 (10th Cir. 2020).

Less than two months later, Plaintiff filed three post-judgment motions, each of which the district court denied. This appeal follows, but Plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments we rejected in his prior appeal to this court. See id. That is, 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.

Plaintiff presents no new arguments, facts, or law. Because we thoroughly addressed and rejected his contentions in Nelson v. Walzl, 829 F. Appx 872 (10th Cir. 2020), we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.

Bobby R. Baldock, Circuit Judge