Nabila Quraishi v. Creative Planning, LLC, formerly known as Creative Planning, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1897
___________________________
Nabila Quraishi
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Creative Planning, LLC, formerly known as Creative Planning, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 4, 2026
Filed: June 16, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nabila Quraishi appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing her motion to
vacate an arbitration award in favor of Creative Planning, LLC because she did not
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

effectuate service as required by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 12,
within the 3-month deadline. Upon de novo review, see Magee v. United States, 9
F.4th 675, 680 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review), we affirm.
As Creative Planning was not a resident of the district in which the arbitration
award was made, the FAA required notice of Quraishi’s motion to vacate to be served
by the United States Marshal in the district in which Creative Planning resided, and
her service via FedEx and email did not satisfy this requirement. See 9 U.S.C. § 12
(notice of motion to vacate arbitral award must be served upon adverse party or his
attorney within 3 months after award is filed or delivered; if adverse party is non-
resident of district in which award was made, notice of application shall be served by
marshal of any district within which adverse party may be found in like manner as
other process of court); Piccolo v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc., 641 F.2d 598, 600
(8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (plaintiffs’ failure to serve their complaint to vacate
within 3 months of award deprived district court of power to review award). While
this court has not decided whether a due-diligence exception to the statutory deadline
exists, we would decline to apply it in this case, as Quraishi did not demonstrate
diligence in obtaining counsel or moving for service by the marshal. See Piccolo, 641
F.2d at 601 (questioning existence of due-diligence exception to statutory deadline
and finding movants’ efforts to comply with statute were not diligent anyway). We
find no merit to Quraishi’s remaining arguments regarding the sufficiency of her
attempted service under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 4, the American Arbitration
Association Rules, or general principles of due process and actual notice.
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --