ADDITIONAL CASES Matthew Smith, Counter Petitioner v. Securities America, Inc. William Selig, Richard Tomisman, and George Mcavoy, Counter Respondents MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On January 26, 2024, Securities America, Inc. (“Petitioner”), commenced this action against Matthew Smith (“Respondent”) to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §10. Dkt. Nos. 1-2 (“Motion to Vacate”). On March 20, 2024, non-parties William Selig, Richard Tomisman, and George McAvoy (each an “Additional Petitioner” and, collectively, the “Additional Petitioners”) moved to join the action as additional petitioners pursuant to Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 11 (“Motion to Join”). On April 1, 2024, Respondent sought to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. §9. Dkt. No. 13 (“Motion to Confirm”). All three motions are presently before the Court. As to the Motion to Vacate, Respondent filed responsive papers in opposition, see Dkt. Nos. 7-8; Petitioner filed a reply in further support, see Dkt. No. 9; and Additional Petitioners have joined Petitioner’s arguments, see Dkt. No. 11. As to the Motion to Join, Petitioner did not object, see Dkt. No. 24 at 4; Respondent filed responsive papers in opposition, see Dkt. No. 13-2; and Additional Petitioners filed a reply in further support, see Dkt. No. 19. As to the Motion to Confirm, Petitioner and Additional Petitioners both filed responsive papers in opposition, see Dkt. Nos. 19, 24-25, 27, and Respondent filed a reply in further support, see Dkt. No. 26.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND2 A. The Parties Petitioner is a broker-dealer and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Dkt. No. 1 at 1; Dkt. No. 13-1 at 2. Petitioner is a corporation incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in La Vista, Nevada. Dkt. No. 1 at 1; Dkt. No. 13-1 at 2. Respondent was previously a broker licensed with FINRA who sold financial products (a “registered representative”) and was associated with Petitioner for a period of time. Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 13-1 at 1. Respondent is a citizen of New York State. Dkt. No. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 13-1 at 1. Additional Petitioners are also registered representatives associated with Petitioner. Dkt. No. 13-1 at
3-7; Dkt. No. 11 at 3. Additional Petitioners are also citizens of New York State. Dkt. No. 2-8 at 2, 13; Dkt. No. 13-1 at 4; Dkt. No. 7-15 at 5. B. The Arbitration 1. Arbitration Agreement Pursuant to a contract between Respondent and Petitioner (the “Representative Agreement”), Respondent agreed “that in connection with any dispute or controversy whatsoever between myself and [Petitioner], or between myself and any other [registered] Representative of [Petitioner], I will submit such dispute to binding arbitration pursuant to the Rules of FINRA and its Code of Arbitration Procedures.” Dkt. No. 2-10 at 4. Additional Petitioners each had contracts with Petitioner containing the same language. Dkt. No. 7-49 at 39, 49, 68. 2. Arbitration Proceedings On October 21, 2022, Respondent initiated an arbitration through FINRA against Petitioner and Additional Petitioners (the “FINRA Arbitration”). Dkt. No. 1 at
