Seldin v. Seldin, No. 17-1045 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement to divide jointly owned assets, and the Agreement contained an arbitration clause. The court held that, because a valid arbitration clause alone does not strip the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim on that basis. Rather, the appropriate procedure would have been for the district court to stay or dismiss the case based on a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion pending arbitration. The court also held that the district court erred when it alternatively found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. The court explained that Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motions are the more appropriate vehicles for a dismissal based on preclusion. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not the appropriate mechanism to use to attempt to compel arbitration, as an arbitration agreement alone, without other statutory or binding jurisdictional limitations, does not divest the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction - See City of Benkelman v. Baseline Eng'g Corp., 867 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2017) - and the district court erred in dismissing the action based on that argument; the district court erred when it found, in the alternative, that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant the Rule 12(b)(1) motion; the appropriate mechanisms for dismissal based on preclusion or because of a pending arbitration should be either a Rule 56 motion or a 12(b)(6) motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.