Arnold Leong v. Warren Havens

At a glance

Parties

Arnold Leong (plaintiff) v. Warren Havens (defendant)

Case no.

No. 20-cv-05236-JST (consolidated with No. 4:20-cv-05234-JST)

Court

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar)

Underlying award(s)

Arbitration award on a dispute over spectrum licenses held by two entities controlled by Havens; Leong petitioned the Alameda County Superior Court to confirm it

Treaty

New York Convention (invoked by the defendant under 9 U.S.C. § 205)

Sector

Telecommunications; FCC radio-spectrum licenses

Outcome

Motion to remand granted; the case was remanded to Alameda County Superior Court (9 October 2020).

The dispute

The case is a long-running dispute, first filed in state court in 2002, over spectrum licenses held by two entities controlled and managed by Warren Havens. Arnold Leong filed a petition in the Alameda County Superior Court to confirm an arbitration award. On 29 July 2020 Havens removed the case to federal court for the fourth time. He relied on diversity jurisdiction, on federal question jurisdiction based on the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and preemption, and on 9 U.S.C. § 205 for awards falling under the New York Convention. He also argued that the confirmation petition was a new action. Leong moved to remand.

Key holdings

1. A petition filed after an arbitration award is not a separate proceeding for purposes of removal. This is the same case the court had already remanded several times, and nothing giving rise to jurisdiction had changed. p. 2
2. No diversity jurisdiction. The LLC defendants remain parties even though they are in receivership. Because an LLC takes the citizenship of its members, Havens and Leong, the plaintiff Leong shares citizenship with the entity defendants, so diversity is not complete. p. 3
3. No federal question jurisdiction. The underlying complaint brings only state law claims, as judges of the court had held before. Havens gave no reason to reach a different result. p. 3
4. The arbitration does not fall under the New York Convention, so 9 U.S.C. § 205 does not support removal. The relationship is entirely between U.S. citizens, and Havens did not show property or performance abroad. Licenses whose signals reach beyond U.S. borders, or that authorize service in Canada and Mexico, are not property located abroad. Nor do they create a reasonable relation with a foreign state under 9 U.S.C. § 202. pp. 4–5
5. Havens did not meet his burden of showing that removal was proper. The action is remanded to Alameda County Superior Court. p. 5

Procedural history

1. 2002Case originally filed in state court.
2. Havens removed the case three times before (Case Nos. 4:15-cv-02463-YGR, 4:18-cv-03603-JST and 4:18-cv-05751-JST). Each time the court remanded it to state court.
3. 29 July 2020Havens removed the case twice more, and it was listed under Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05236 and 4:20-cv-05234.
4. 12 August 2020Leong moved to remand.
5. 9 October 2020The court consolidated the two cases and granted the motion to remand to Alameda County Superior Court.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Jon S. Tigar Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• removal
• remand
• New York Convention
• 9 U.S.C. § 205
• 9 U.S.C. § 202
• petition to confirm arbitration award
• diversity jurisdiction
• LLC citizenship
• federal question jurisdiction
• preemption
• FCC spectrum licenses
• Federal Communications Act
• receivership
• foreign relation requirement
• Alameda County Superior Court
• telecommunications

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.