have not alleged or shown that the FAA completely preempts state law, their argument must fail. For all of the above reasons, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. CONCLUSION Based upon the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 17] is granted. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 1 . Contrary to their position before the arbitrator, plaintiffs now argue that the FAA should have been applied when construing the arbitration clause. 2 . Although the Court’s decision in Moses specifically mentioned only sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, section 10 also does not establish an independent jurisdictional basis. See Smith v. Rush Retail Ctrs., Inc., 360 F.3d 504, 505 & n. 6 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Pinnavaia v. Nat’l Arbitration
holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction holding the bias interpretation reasonable and listing cases reaching the same conclusion holding that section 10 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction and listing cases from dc second sixth seventh ninth and eleventh circuits holding same holding that section 13706 does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over disputes involving independent brokerage contracts between broker and shipper holding same and citing cases