Leyb v. Tinder LLC et al
| Noy Leyb |
| Tinder LLC, Match Group LLC and National Arbitration Mediation Holdings LLC |
| 3:2025cv03059 |
| November 10, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Ed Kinkeade |
| Other Statutes: Arbitration |
| 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h); Stafford, 945 F.2d at 805. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 2/3/2026) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 19
RESPONSE filed by Tinder LLC re: #15 Notice (Other) (Chibli, Aaron)
|
|
Filing 18
(Document Restricted) Attorney Contact Information (Sealed pursuant to SO 19-1, statute, or rule) filed by Tinder LLC(Notice: Any required service of this document is the responsibility of the filer.) (Smith, Brantley)
|
|
Filing 17
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Noy Leyb filed by Noy Leyb. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Gillespie, Tristan)
|
|
Filing 16
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Petitioner Noy Leyb ("Petitioner") filed his Petition and Motion to Vacate and Require Reasoned Decision for Arbitration Decision or, in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling National Arbitration and Mediation Holdings, LLC to Submit the Matter to an Arbitration Panel (the "Petition") (Doc. No. 1) directly in federal court. The Court entered an order identifying a jurisdictional defect with the Petion in that Plaintiff alleged "Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 10 and 11" conferred jurisdiction on this Court. Doc. No. 7 (quoting Doc. No. 1 at 3); see Ascension Data & Analytics, L.L.C. v. Pairprep, Inc., 105 F.4th 749, 752 (5th Cir. 2024) (petitioner requesting confirmation or vacatur of an arbitration award "must identify a grant of jurisdiction, apart from [the relevant FAA section] itself, conferring access to a federal forum.") (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 8 (2022)). Plaintiff thereafter timely filed an Amended Petition and Motion to Vacate and Require Reasoned Decision for Arbitration Decision or, in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling Submission of the Matter to an Arbitration Panel (the "Amended Petion") (Doc. No. 8). In the Amended Petition, Plaintiff invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction, alleging each party's diverse citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $500,000. Doc. No. 8 at 2, 3. The parties' citizenship (as alleged) is indeed completely diverse--Plaintiff is a citizen of New York and Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and of Texas. Id. What is not clear is whether the jurisdictional amount in controversy is satisfied. In Badgerow, the Supreme Court clarified that a federal court cannot apply the "look-through approach" in determining its subject matter jurisdiction on a petition to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award under Section 9 or 10. Badgerow, 596 U.S at 9-12; see id. at 10-11 (explaining that the statutory language of Section 4, which governs petitions to compel arbitration, expressly provides for the "look-through approach" in assessing subject matter jurisdiction whereas Sections 9 and 10 "do not mention the court's subject-matter jurisdiction at all" and, so, this approach cannot apply under ordinary principles of statutory construction.). On a petition to vacate, affirm, or modify, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue before the court is "the enforceability of an arbitral award," not the issues presented in the arbitration demand." Id. at 9. The arbitration award "is no more than a contractual resolution of the parties' dispute--a way of settling legal claims. And quarrels about legal settlementseven settlements of federal claimstypically involve only state law, like disagreements about other contracts." Id. The Supreme Court held that "a court may look only to the application actually submitted to it in assessing its jurisdiction." Id. at 5; see Ascension Data, 105 F.4th 749, 754 (5th Cir. 2024) (recognizing Badgerow and affirming that "[t]he only dispute properly before the district court" on a vacatur application is "the enforceability of the arbitral award" and, so the court cannot look to underlying arbitration demand for its subject matter jurisdiction.). Here, Petitioner Noy Leyb ("Petitioner") alleges the amount in controversy exceeds $500,000. Doc. No. 8 at 2, 3. The basis for this amount in controversy appears to be the demand made by Petitioner in the arbitration proceeding. Id. at 8; Doc. No. 1 at 113-15 (Demand for Arbitration), 119. But the arbitrator found that Petitioner's claims "are barred by the Communications Decency Act" and dismissed all of Petitioner's claims with no monetary award being made. Doc. No. 1 at 123. Under the binding caselaw, the Court cannot look-through the Amended Petition to vacate this arbitration award to the underlying arbitration demand in determining subject matter jurisdiction on this vacatur petition. See Shah v. Agarwal, Civ. Action No. 3:, 2025 WL 2256510, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2025)(Lindsay, J.) (court found that arbitration award for $50,000 in attorneys' fees did not meet the requisite amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction and the petitioner could not rely on, nor could the court look through to, the underlying arbitration to satisfy this jurisdictional requirement.). As the Court stated in its prior order, federal courts "are courts of limited jurisdiction, defined (within constitutional bounds) by federal statute." Badgerow, 596 U.S. at 7 (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). It appears the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. If he can do so in good faith, Petitioner can amend his Amended Petition by January 21, 2025 to clearly establish this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Otherwise, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir. 1991) (Failure adequately to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.).In light of this Order, the Court STAYS Plaintiff's deadline to secure local counsel. The Court further STAYS the responsive briefing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14). The Court will reset these deadlines by separate order, if necessary, once subject matter jurisdiction has been conclusively determined. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 1/12/2026) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 15
NOTICE of Compliance and Clarification of Principle Office filed by Noy Leyb re: 13 Order. (Gillespie, Tristan) Modified text on 1/12/2026 (axm).
|
|
Filing 14
MOTION to Dismiss filed by Tinder LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. Attorney Aaron Eduardo Chibli added to party Tinder LLC(pty:dft) (Chibli, Aaron)
|
|
Filing 13
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of Compliance (Doc. No. 12) as to the Court's order entered December 9, 2025. With respect to the local counsel requirement, Plaintiff's counsel represents that he "maintains a primary office" in Dallas that is located one mile from the federal courthouse. Doc. No. 12 at 1 (emphasis added). In defining "local counsel", Local Rule 83.10 refers to "the attorney's principal office", not "a primary office". L. Civ. R. 83.10(a) (emphasis added). Based on this Notice of Compliance, the Court is not satisfied that counsel for Plaintiff satisfies Rule 83.10(a).By January 5, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff shall file a notice clarifying that his principal office is located at 1920 McKinney Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75201, AND further identify a suite or room number. If counsel cannot represent to the Court that his principal office is located in this District within 50 miles of the courthouse in the Earle Cabell Federal Building, then local counsel who does satisfy the requirements of Rule 83.10(a) shall file an entry of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff by January 9, 2026. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/31/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 12
NOTICE of Compliance with December 9, 2025 Order re: 10 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, filed by Noy Leyb (Gillespie, Tristan)
|
|
Filing 11
SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Tinder LLC; served on 12/15/2025. (Gillespie, Tristan)
|
|
Filing 10
ELECTRONIC ORDER:Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a 30-Day Extension of Time to Comply with the Court's November 10, 2025 Order (Doc. No. 9). Having carefully considered the Motion, the Court finds good cause for the requested extension of time, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), and, therefore, GRANTS the Motion. By January 9, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff must either become admitted to practice in this District, L. Civ. R. 83.7, or move the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice, L. Civ. R. 83.9(b). Further, by January 9, 2026, local counsel who satisfies the requirements of Local Civil Rule 83.10(a) shall file an entry of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.(Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 12/9/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION for a 30-Day Extension of Time to Comply with the Court's November 10, 2025 Order filed by Noy Leyb with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Gillespie, Tristan) Modified text on 12/9/2025 (knb).
|
|
Filing 8
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Noy Leyb. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Gillespie, Tristan)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC ORDER: "The district courts of the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction, defined (within constitutional bounds) by federal statute." Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1, 7 (2022) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Federal courts are vested with subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," or where the case in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states, or between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1)-(2). The Court has "an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). Petitioner Noy Leyb ("Petitioner") filed his Petition and Motion to Vacate and Require Reasoned Decision for Arbitration Decision or, in the Alternative, for an Order Compelling National Arbitration and Mediation Holdings, LLC to Submit the Matter to an Arbitration Panel (the "Petition") (Doc. No. 1) directly in federal court. Petitioner alleges that "Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11" confer jurisdiction on this Court. Doc. No. 1 at 3. The Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA") "authorizes a party to an arbitration agreement to seek several kinds of assistance from a federal court." Ascension Data & Analytics, L.L.C. v. Pairprep, Inc., 105 F.4th 749, 752 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Badgerow , 596 U.S. at 4 ). But "the FAA's 'authorization of a petition does not itself create jurisdiction. Rather, the federal court must have... an independent jurisdictional basis to resolve the matter.'" Id. at 753 (quoting Badgerow , 596 U.S. at 4). Thus, a petitioner requesting vacatur of an arbitration award "must identify a grant of jurisdiction, apart from [the relevant FAA section] itself, conferring access to a federal forum." Id. (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Badgerow , 596 U.S. at 8). If the petitioner is unable to do so, "the action belongs in state court." Id. (Badgerow , 596 U.S. at 8); see also id. ("[S]tate courts have a prominent role to play as enforcers of agreements to arbitrate.") (quoting Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009)). Petitioner has not identified an independent basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter. See Ascension, 105 F.4th at 755 ("Under Badgerow, when a party applies to a district court to confirm, modify, or vacate an arbitral award, it must establish on the face of the application a basis for subject matter jurisdiction separate and apart from the FAA.") (emphasis added). Accordingly, Petitioner may file an amended petition that specifically states an independent basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction by November 21, 2025; otherwise, this case will be DISMISSED without prejudice and without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h); Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir. 1991) ("Failure adequately to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.").Petitioner is reminded that, for diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC") is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990); see also V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010) (court must also know citizenship of each "sub-member"). These allegations must include EACH member's identity and their citizenship, through every layer where relevant. MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). If any of those members are natural persons, their " 1332 citizenship is determined by domicile, which requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one's permanent home." SXSW, L.L.C. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 568-69 (1915)); accord Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Domicile requires the demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain."). "Citizenship and residence, as often declared by this court, are not synonymous terms." MidCap Media, 929 F.3d at 313 (quoting Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648 (1878)). (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/12/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 6
Summons Issued as to National Arbitration Mediation Holdings LLC, Tinder LLC. (knb)
|
|
Filing 5
New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge McKay). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (knb)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER: This Order governs requests to file materials in this case under seal. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/10/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC STANDING ORDER: This Court requires all counsel of record to review and comply with the undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements as well as the Local Civil Rules for the Northern District of Texas upon making an appearance in a matter before this Court. These can be found at # Judge Specific Requirements and # Local Civil Rules . Further, counsel shall refer to this Court's Judge Specific Requirements and the Local Civil Rules prior to calling chambers with any questions. The Court calls specific attention to Local Civil Rule 7.2(f), which addresses the disclosure of the use of generative artificial intelligence, and Local Civil Rule 83.10, which address the requirement of local counsel. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/10/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 2
ORDER: This case was filed in this Court on November 10, 2025. Plaintiffs Counsel Tristan W. Gillespie is not admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Therefore, within 30 days from the date of this order, counsel for Plaintiff, must either become admitted to practice in this District (See LR 83.7), or move the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice (See LR 83.9(b)).Further, Local Counsel in this Court is required, and therefore within 30 days from the date of this order, counsel for Plaintiff must also designate local counsel pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.10(a). Upon said appearance, the undersigned requires local counsel to sign filed with this Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned's Judge Specific Requirements can be found at https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/district-judge-ed-kinkeade. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/10/2025) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Noy Leyb. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-15974717) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 NAM Summons, #3 Tinder Summons) (Gillespie, Tristan)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
