Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
Decision Date | 31 March 1959 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 357-58. |
Parties | Miguel FIRPI, Plaintiff, v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
F. Fernandez Cuyar, San Juan, P. R., for plaintiff.
Hartzell, Fernandez & Novas, San Juan, P. R., for defendant.
This case was removed from the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Superior Court, San Juan Part, on November 24, 1958. It is a civil action in which plaintiff claims damages for an alleged breach of transportation contract with defendant. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, is $9,925. Plaintiff was and is a citizen of, and domiciled in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and defendant is a corporation which is a citizen of, and domiciled in, the State of New York.
Defendant alleges in opposition to the motion to remand, that this court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 48 U.S.C.A. § 863, and that this case is a proper case for removal under section 1441, Title 28 U.S.C.A.
The corporate defendant's contention is that the Act of July 25, 1958, amending the jurisdiction of district courts in civil actions with regard to amount in controversy and diversity of citizenship1 is inapplicable to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Reliance is placed on Title 48 U.S.C.A. § 863, which states as follows:
At the outset it must be stated that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has a twofold jurisdiction not enjoyed by other United States District Courts.
First it has the "other jurisdiction" which is that conferred upon all of the United States District Courts of which number this court was made one, for the first time, by express provision of the Act of June 25, 1948, Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 119 and 451. This "other jurisdiction" insofar as diversity of citizenship is concerned, is defined in Section 1332, Title 28 U.S.C.A., quoted in its present form in the margin. The Act of July 25, 1958, amended section 1332 by raising the amount in controversy from the former amount in excess of $3,000 to an amount exceeding $10,000 (the provision relating to citizenship of corporations is not involved in the case at bar). Defendant's contention however is that the jurisdictional amount required for removal of civil actions to this court remains at the lower figure of an amount exceeding $3,000, as fixed "in addition" by Section 863 of Title 48 U.S.C.A. The theory advanced is that to hold that the amendment of July 25, 1958, is applicable to this court would be tantamount to attributing to the Congress a repeal by implication of section 863 of Title 48 U.S. C.A. in violation of the well known rule of construction that repeals by implication are not favored, citing Sec. 538, 58 American Jurisprudence, pp. 542-546.
I agree that judicial policy does not favor the repeal of statutes by implication; however, I do not agree with the theory that any repeal, implied or otherwise, of Section 863 of Title 48 is involved here. As stated at the beginning of this opinion, the jurisdiction of this court is twofold. In addition to its diversity jurisdiction defined in Sec. 1332 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., and further limited by the Act of July 25, 1958, said amendment being generally applicable to all the U. S. District Courts which are Courts of the United States, and restricted to them, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has the special, additional jurisdiction, unaffected by the Act of July 25, 1958, which was conferred upon it by section 863 of Title 48 U.S.C.A. complete with its own restrictions and limitations. Section 41 of the Organic Act of 1917, Sec. 863 U.S.C.A. Title 48, which was carried over into the Federal Relations Act — Public Law 600, approved July 3, 1950, 64 Stat. 319 ( ) stated this additional jurisdiction as follows:
Thus under this enlarged or additional jurisdiction, not vested in the District Courts by Sec. 1332 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., it was held that this Court had jurisdiction of an action by a Spanish citizen not domiciled in Puerto Rico against a Canadian Corporation wherein the matter in controversy exceeded $3,000. Sanfeliz v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1 Cir., 74 F.2d 338.
See, also, Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Cognet, 1 Cir., 3 F.2d 21, and Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Mor, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Castano, 6560.
...this decision casts an unfavorable light upon the reasoning, if not the decision, of the district court in Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., D.C. P.R., 1959, 175 F.Supp. 188. 4 Plaintiffs' contention in this court that the letters were admissible on the issue of "obstinacy," justif......
-
LUCE & COMPANY v. Alimentos Borinquenos, SA
...of this Court, in view of the 1958 amendments to the general diversity statutes, stem from the decision in Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, D.C., 175 F.Supp. 188 (1959) wherein this Court held that henceforth the Title 48 "additional jurisdiction" was limited to the jurisdiction not pro......
-
Lavergne v. United States Casualty Co.
...Puerto Rico has additional jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C.A. § 863, which is unaffected by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c). Firpi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., D.C., 175 F.Supp. 188. The amendment to 28 U.S. C.A. § 1332 by its very terms is applicable only to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332 and 1441. Therefo......
- LADY'S ISLAND BLDRS., INC. v. Eighth Beaufort MCAAS Quarters, Inc.