Alethia McCormick v. America Online, Inc., 909 F.3d 677

Moore alleged AOL violated the Stored Communications Act and its privacy policy after police obtained his AOL account data; he demanded $74,999 in arbitration.
The parties’ service agreement required binding arbitration; an AAA arbitrator denied Moore’s claims in full.
Moore (pro se) filed in district court to vacate or modify the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. §§ 10, 11, asserting arbitrator bias and other procedural errors and invoking federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332).
The district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), concluding Moore had not shown the $75,000 jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction and did not address his federal-question assertion.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit addressed whether subject-matter jurisdiction over § 10/§ 11 motions is determined by the nature of the underlying claim (the “look through” approach) or treated as a separate contract-based question.
The Fourth Circuit held the district court had federal-question jurisdiction because Moore’s underlying claim arose under federal law, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for the district court to resolve the § 10/§ 11 motion on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal courts determine jurisdiction over FAA §10/§11 motions by "looking through" to the underlying claim	Moore: Jurisdiction should follow the nature of the underlying claim (here, federal SCA claim), so §1331 applies	AOL: §9–11 lack §4’s "save for" language, so look-through should not apply; FAA motions are contract-based	Held: Apply look-through; jurisdiction over §10/§11 follows whether underlying dispute could be litigated in federal court
Whether district court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction	Moore: District court erred by dismissing without addressing federal-question jurisdiction	AOL: Dismissal on diversity-ground appropriate given claimed damages	Held: Dismissal vacated; court had federal-question jurisdiction and must consider Moore’s §10/§11 motion
Whether §§9–11 require a prior §4 petition to invoke federal jurisdiction	Moore: No prior §4 petition required; §10/§11 jurisdiction follows underlying dispute	AOL: (implicit) §4’s text distinguishes pre-award remedies from post-award ones	Held: No prior §4 filing required; uniform FAA procedural scheme means same jurisdictional rule applies
Whether appellate court should resolve merits of §10/§11 motion	AOL: Ask court to decide merits now	Moore: District court should decide first	Held: Declined to decide merits; remanded for district court to address Rule 12(b)(6)-type arguments first

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (look-through rule for §4 petitions to compel arbitration)
Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (FAA does not itself supply independent federal-question jurisdiction)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (FAA favors arbitration as alternative to litigation)
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (scope of FAA and substantive federal law governing arbitration agreements)
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (federal-law principles governing arbitrability issues)
Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263 (court that can order arbitration may also confirm or set aside awards)
Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.) (applying look-through to §§9–11)
Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Sec. of P.R., Inc., 852 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.) (applying look-through to §§9–11)
Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 834 F.3d 242 (3d Cir.) (rejecting look-through for §§9–11)
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193 (avoid tension between pre-award and post-award FAA provisions)