Brandenburg Health Facilities v. Ivye Mattingly
677 F. App'x 298
6th Cir.2017Background
- Mary Jo Hancock executed a durable power of attorney in 2007 appointing Ivye Mattingly to enter contracts on her behalf. Hancock later became a resident of a nursing facility operated by Preferred Care.
- In 2013 Hancock allegedly suffered injuries from negligent care; Mattingly (as administratrix) sued Preferred Care in Meade Circuit Court on Hancock’s behalf.
- Preferred Care moved in state court to compel arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement and also moved to dismiss certain claims; the state court held the case in abeyance pending Kentucky Supreme Court guidance.
- After the Kentucky decision in Extendicare Homes, Preferred Care filed in federal district court seeking to compel arbitration under the FAA; the district court granted the motion, enjoined Mattingly from pursuing all but the wrongful-death claim in state court, and stayed the federal proceeding under 9 U.S.C. § 3 pending arbitration.
- Mattingly appealed the district court’s order; Preferred Care moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s order was interlocutory and the case was stayed under § 3 of the FAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the district court’s order compelling arbitration and staying the case under 9 U.S.C. § 3 | Mattingly argued the injunction compelling arbitration is reviewable on appeal (citing Ninth Circuit authorities treating injunctions as independently appealable). | Preferred Care argued the order is interlocutory and stayed under § 3, so § 16(b) bars immediate appeal absent a § 1292(b) certification. | Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court stayed the case under § 3 and did not make a § 1292(b) certification. |
| Whether the district court’s injunction barring state-court proceedings (except wrongful-death claim) is independently appealable | Mattingly contended the injunction of state-court claims should be reviewable, especially as to non-diverse Kentucky defendants. | Preferred Care argued the injunction was entered pursuant to § 4 of the FAA to enforce the arbitration agreement and is therefore not immediately appealable under § 16(b)(2). | The injunction is not reviewable on appeal here; it was issued under the FAA and review is foreclosed by § 16(b)(2). |
| Whether Mattingly may continue state-court actions against Kentucky (non-diverse) defendants while federal FAA action proceeds | Mattingly argued Kentucky defendants could not be bound by federal diversity-based litigation and thus should be litigable in state court. | Preferred Care asserted federal jurisdiction was based on the FAA (federal-question), so the injunction applies regardless of defendants’ diversity. | Court rejected Mattingly’s argument; FAA-based federal jurisdiction supports the injunction including as to Kentucky defendants. |
| Whether Ninth Circuit rule in Quackenbush allows appellate review when arbitration order is ‘‘inextricably bound up’’ with an injunction | Mattingly relied on Quackenbush to claim jurisdiction to review both orders. | Preferred Care relied on Sixth Circuit precedent treating similar scenarios as non-appealable when stayed under § 3. | Sixth Circuit declined to follow Quackenbush and instead relied on its prior decision in Preferred Care v. Hopkins; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crockett v. Cumberland Coll., 316 F.3d 571 (6th Cir.) (standard: appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is for the court to determine)
- Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393 (6th Cir.) (review of Anti-Injunction Act questions is de novo)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir.) (where arbitration order is ‘‘inextricably bound’’ with injunction, appellate review may be allowed)
- Extendicare Homes, Inc. v. Whisman, 478 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. 2015) (state-law decision relevant to arbitration disputes in Kentucky)
- Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Estate of Hopkins by & through Hopkins, 845 F.3d 765 (6th Cir.) (similar Sixth Circuit precedent holding appeals barred when district court stayed proceedings under § 3 of the FAA)