Fu Wu v. Chun Liu
131 F.4th 1295
11th Cir.2025Background
- Wu and Lam solicited investments from Chinese nationals for a Miami real estate project, promising EB-5 visa eligibility through their entity, Florida Immigration Building Funding, LLC.
- Investors, including Liu, contributed millions based on purchase agreements containing arbitration clauses.
- Wu and Lam allegedly diverted investor monies for their personal use, leading to limited job creation and project failure.
- Liu filed a state court action for fraud and related claims; Wu actively litigated in state court before seeking to compel arbitration.
- When the state court suit progressed, Wu removed the action to federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 205 (FAA), simultaneously seeking to compel arbitration.
- The district court denied Wu's motion to compel arbitration (finding Wu not a signatory to the purchase agreement) and remanded for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bar appellate review of a federal court order denying arbitration and remanding for lack of jurisdiction? | Section 1447(d) bars review because the denial and remand are intertwined with subject-matter jurisdiction. | The denial of arbitration is separately appealable; jurisdiction is not a barrier. | Section 1447(d) bars appellate review; appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Can § 16(a)(1)(C) of the FAA override § 1447(d)’s jurisdictional bar? | No express statutory exception exists; jurisdictional bar controls. | Section 16(a)(1)(C) allows direct appeal from denials of motions to compel arbitration. | No override; § 1447(d) applies unless expressly excepted. |
| Do court-created exceptions (Waco or substantive law) allow review here? | Exceptions don't apply; decision was jurisdictional, not substantive. | Denial of arbitration is a separable order, conclusive on state proceedings. | Exceptions do not apply; state court can revisit jurisdictional findings. |
| Was the federal court order based on a forum-selection clause, making it reviewable? | Not based on forum selection; jurisdiction depended on enforceability of arbitration clause. | Analogous to prior case Snapper, where review was allowed. | Not analogous; enforceability of arbitration clause determines subject-matter jurisdiction; not reviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Tr., 547 U.S. 633 (2006) (section 1447(d) bars appellate review of remand orders based on lack of jurisdiction)
- Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995) (section 1447(d) applies absent clear statutory exception)
- Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins., 20 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021) (explains limitations on review of remand orders)
- Calderon v. Aerovias Nacionales de Colom., 929 F.2d 599 (11th Cir. 1991) (substantive issue must be separable from jurisdiction for review)
- Aquamar S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (discusses Waco exception for reviewing certain orders accompanying remand)