Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. - CIVIL ACTION No. 99-2499-KHV, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20546 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2001)

Rule:

Courts must address issues of jurisdiction before reaching merits.

Facts:

Plaintiff Klocek brought suit against Gateway, Inc. on claims arising from his purchase of a Gateway computer. Well over a year ago, on June 15, 2000, the Court entered an order which overruled Gateway's motion to dismiss Klocek’s claims on the ground that they were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. In that order, the Court ruled that Gateway had not provided sufficient evidence that Klocek agreed to arbitrate his claims under Kansas or Missouri law. After the Court entered this order, Gateway filed a motion to dismiss Klocek’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court sustained this motion on September 7, 2000, and the Clerk entered judgment the same day. Gateway thus filed a Motion to Vacate because the Court later found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.

Issue:

Should the Motion to Vacate Order be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

Unlike University of South Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., at the time the Court entered the underlying order in this case, neither the Court nor the parties had questioned the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against Gateway. Rather, Gateway chose to seek dismissal on the ground that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate his claims. Gateway does not assert that the Court erred in ruling on that motion before Gateway filed a second motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The purpose of Gateway's motion is unclear. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to a court which may later acquire jurisdiction over the controversy, or to someone in the future simply as a description of the course of this case. For one thing, the underlying order dismissed plaintiff's claims against another defendant, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Gateway has therefore failed to show good reason why the underlying order should be vacated.