Seldin v. Seldin

The 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. View "Seldin v. Seldin" on Justia Law