Hughes v. Papa , 153 F. App'x 125 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-1-2005
Hughes v. Papa
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1978
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Hughes v. Papa" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 280.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/280
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1978
________________
NANCY L. HUGHES,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH PAPA; FIRST
UNION SECURITIES
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-CV-03643)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 11, 2005
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 1, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Nancy L. Hughes appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
Hughes’ complaint sought to vacate an arbitration award entered by the National
Association of Security Dealers, Inc. As the District Court correctly noted, the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., does not provide an independent basis for federal
question jurisdiction. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460
U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983); PaineWebber, Inc. v. Faragalli, 61 F.3d 1063 (3d Cir. 1995). The
District Court also properly noted that Hughes and the defendants are all citizens of New
Jersey; thus, there was no basis for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
As Hughes pleaded no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court could
not reach the merits of the complaint, and properly dismissed the action. 2 We will affirm
the District Court’s judgment.3
1
Hughes filed a timely motion for reconsideration in the District Court, which was
denied. Because Hughes did not file a second notice of appeal or an amended notice of
appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the order denying the motion for
reconsideration.
2
Although defendants did not raise the jurisdictional issue in their motion to dismiss in
the District Court, Hughes was on notice of the jurisdictional problem when the District
Court entered its final order. She had an opportunity to respond to the jurisdictional
defect in her motion for reconsideration, but the motion does not indicate how the District
Court might assert subject matter jurisdiction; in fact, the motion states: “The Court does
not have subject matter jurisdiction over this following matter . . . .”
3
Hughes’ motion to expand the record to include four cassette tapes, which she says
are the tapes from the arbitration proceeding, is denied. The tapes have no bearing on the
issue before this Court, namely, whether the District Court properly dismissed Hughes’
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Further, this Court “cannot consider material on appeal
that is outside of the district court record.” In re Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.'s Application
for Access to Sealed Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 96 (3d Cir. 1990).
2