The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
QUANG VO,
Petitioner, Case. No. 6:22-cv-685-MC
v. OPINION AND ORDER
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND
FAMILY SERVICES (WARREN
COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES),
Respondent.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Petitioner Quang Vo, proceeding pro se, filed a “Petition for Confirmation, Recognition
and Enforcement of Arbitral Award.” Petitioner did not pay the filing fee and did not move for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner is apparently unhappy with a custody decision
rendered by Respondent. Petitioner unilaterally drafted a “binding contract” that purportedly
bound the Respondent to appear before binding arbitration in Oregon. The contract warned
Respondent that a failure to respond to the binding contract withing 72 hours would bind
Respondent and place it in default. When Respondent did not respond within 72 hours, Petitioner
apparently sent the matter to binding arbitration. When Respondent did not appear at arbitration,
the arbitrator apparently granted Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. Among other
things, the arbitrator attempted to award Petitioner damages. At the time of filing, Petitioner
calculated damages in the amount of $55,200,000.00. Petition, Ex. 3, 15; ECF No. 1.
For a multitude of reasons, the Court declines to grant Petitioner the relief sought. First,
as noted, Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Second, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. Although Petitioner alleges this Court has
diversity jurisdiction, Petitioner and Respondent are both Ohio citizens. Despite Petitioner’s
attempt to unilaterally force Respondent into binding arbitration in Oregon, there is no indication
Respondent has any contacts, let alone minimum contacts, with Oregon necessary to establish
personal jurisdiction.
More importantly, the petition appears to be an attempt at an end run around state court
proceedings and is therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes lower federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally attack prior state
court decisions. See Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d
1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Federal courts are
also generally prohibited from interfering in issues of domestic relations. This exception applies
to issues involving child custody. Andenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992). To the
extent Petitioner seeks to challenge a custody decree, he must make that challenge in state court.
Additionally, although the Federal Arbitration Act allows a party to file an action
confirming a valid arbitration award, the alleged arbitration here is not valid. The Court is
unaware of any precedent that would allow one party to unilaterally draft a contract notifying
another party that, barring any objection within 72 hours, the responding party would waive any
right to object to the purported arbitration proceedings. As the alleged arbitration is invalid, this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed. See Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (court may raise question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any
time).
Additionally, this action seeks money damages against a state agency. The Eleventh
Amendment, however, “bars money damages and other retrospective relief against a state or
instrumentality of a state.” Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 865 (9th
Cir. 2016). On a fundamental level, sovereign immunity bars the relief Petitioner seeks.
Although a state may waive sovereign immunity, any such waiver must be an express waiver.
Here, Petitioner merely alleges the agency waived immunity when it failed to respond within 72
hours to the unilateral contract Petitioner sent the agency. The alleged waiver here falls far short
of an “unambiguous” waiver necessary to show the agency expressly waived sovereign
immunity. Bird v. Or. Comm’n for the Blind, 22 F.4th 809, 824 (9th Cir. 2022).
As the Court clearly lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and as the Respondent is entitled to
sovereign immunity, there is no point in requiring Petitioner to pay the filing fee or move for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As the petition fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2022.
_____/s/ Michael McShane ______
Michael McShane
United States District Judge