Gonzalez-Roman v. Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, Civ. No. 31-65.

• Decision Date: 09 September 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 31-65.
• Citation: 303 F. Supp. 482
• Parties: William, Julio C., Miguel A., Plinio H., Harry and Doris GONZALEZ-ROMAN and Jose Luis Alicea v. The FEDERAL LAND BANK OF BALTIMORE and Candida R. Roura Torres.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

303 F. Supp. 482

William, Julio C., Miguel A., Plinio H., Harry and Doris GONZALEZ-ROMAN and Jose Luis Alicea v. The FEDERAL LAND BANK OF BALTIMORE and Candida R. Roura Torres.

Civ. No. 31-65.

United States District Court D. Puerto Rico.

September 9, 1969.

Guillermo S. Pierluisi & Charles H. Julia, Rio Piedras, P. R., for plaintiffs.

Baragaño, Trias, Saldaña & Francis, San Juan, P. R., for defendant.

ORDER

FERNANDEZ-BADILLO, District Judge.

The present action originally filed on January 18, 1965 before the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Section, seeks judgment declaring that certain foreclosure proceedings carried out in 1936 by the Federal Land Bank of Baltimore before this federal District Court under equity case No. 2011 are "absolutely null and inexistent in law on account of violations of the due process of law." It is further prayed that defendants or either of them be ordered to return to plaintiffs the foreclosed property described in the complaint with a monetary award for the benefits derived or which could have been derived from the cultivation of the land. The basis for the contention that the federal judgment is null and void is that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants in the 1936 foreclosure proceedings. This independent action brought in the Commonwealth court to obtain relief from the federal judgment was removed by co-defendant The Federal Land Bank of Baltimore on January 26, 1965 under the general removal provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). No steps were taken by plaintiffs towards obtaining a remand. Petitioner justified removal to this Court solely on the fact that it had original jurisdiction under the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 632 relative to civil suits to which a corporation organized under the laws of the United States is a party arising out of transactions involving the international or foreign banking or banking in a dependency or insular possession of the United States.¹

Upon considering the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by defendant Federal Land Bank² the undersigned judge deemed it appropriate to look into the merits of the factual averments which allegedly justified removal. It is too well settled to enter into discussion that the Court may of its own initiative inquire into its jurisdiction in removed cases and remand the same to the local courts for lack of it. 28 U.S.C. § 1447, Lomax v. Duchow, 163 F.Supp. 873 (D.C.Neb.1958), Ingram v. Sterling, 141 F.Supp. 786 (D.C.Ark. 1956). I find that the present litigation is not one arising from a transaction involving banking in a dependency or insular possession of the United States. It is rather an independent action...