Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federación De Ajedrez De Puerto Rico, Inc.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
• Writing for the Court: THOMPSON
• Citation: Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federación De Ajedrez De P.R., Inc., 734 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2013)
• Decision Date: 21 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–1022.,12–1022.
• Parties: Rafael ORTIZ–BONILLA; Luis J. Torres–Bauzá; Juan Martín Santa–Torres; Julio Guzmán–Freire; Cristóbal Vega–Adorno; Juan Javier Hernández–Lebrón, Plaintiffs, Appellants, Fernando Martínez–Buitrago, Plaintiff, v. FEDERACIÓN DE AJEDREZ DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendant, Appellee.

734 F.3d 28

Rafael ORTIZ–BONILLA; Luis J. Torres–Bauzá; Juan Martín Santa–Torres; Julio Guzmán–Freire; Cristóbal Vega–Adorno; Juan Javier Hernández–Lebrón, Plaintiffs, Appellants,Fernando Martínez–Buitrago, Plaintiff,

v.FEDERACIÓN DE AJEDREZ DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendant, Appellee.

No. 12–1022.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Aug. 21, 2013.

Donato Rivera-de Jesús, for appellants.

Albéniz Couret–Fuentes, with whom Lee R. Sepulvado–Ramos, Jorge A. Galiber–Sánchez, and Sepulvado & Maldonado, PSC were on brief, for appellee.

Before TORRUELLA, HOWARD, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

In this case, we are called upon to referee a dispute between a group of chess players and their opponent, the Puerto Rico Chess Federation. Having come to a stalemate over events leading up to and during a chess federation meeting, the chess players filed suit against the federation in Puerto Rico Superior Court, alleging violations of their rights protected by the United States and Puerto Rico constitutions and Puerto Rico law. The chess federation removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The chess players filed a second case, similar to the first, again in Puerto Rico court, this time excluding and waiving any claims under federal law. The chess federation removed this case as well, the district court consolidated the two, and declared jurisdiction over the second case under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the chess federation and dismissed the chess players' claims. They now appeal, first challenging the district court's exercise of jurisdiction over their claims and then the court's dismissal of several of their Puerto Rico law claims. After careful consideration we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Background

Appellants Rafael Ortiz–Bonilla, Luis José Torres–Bauzá, Juan Martín Santa–Torres, Julio Guzmán–Freire, Cristóbal Vega–Adorno, and Juan Javier Hernández–Lebrón (collectively “the Chessplayers”), are members of the Puerto Rico Chess Federation, appellee Federación de Ajedrez de Puerto Rico, Inc. (“FAPR”). FAPR is a private, not-for-profit corporation, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, established for the promotion and dissemination of chess. As a member of the international chess federation, Fédération Internationale des Eches (“FIDE”), FAPR also participates in international chess competitions.

Every two years, FAPR elects a Board of Directors in charge of the administration of the affairs of the organization. The election of interest in this case was scheduled to take place at the ordinary meeting scheduled for January 2011. On November 7, 2010, one of the Chessplayers, Cristóbal Vega–Adorno, submitted his candidacy for FAPR President in the upcoming election. The next day, ten FAPR members submitted a petition calling for an extraordinary meeting on November 20, 2010, to amend FAPR's constitution and restructure its organization administratively and fiscally.

FAPR's then-administrator, Vance Berríos, sent a message to the group e-mail address “ajedrezpr@ yahoo. com” (it is not entirely clear which members subscribed to this group e-mail address). Berríos's message contained a notification written by FAPR's then-President, Omar Añeses Bocanegra, summoning all active members to a special meeting to be held on November 20, for the purpose of amending the FAPR constitution. Añeses's message contained the text of the proposed amendments and a section titled “The Right to Participate in Meetings” that featured excerpts from the FAPR constitution pertaining to membership, voting rights, and new members. Five members, including three of the Chessplayers, responded to Añeses twice, challenging the validity of the extraordinary meeting. Añeses did not respond to those messages.

When several members of FAPR, including some of the Chessplayers, arrived at the extraordinary meeting they were barred from participating. Añeses excluded those members claiming they were not active members in good standing and denied permission to other members wanting to renew their memberships on the spot in order to participate in the meeting. And so the meeting was held without those members, with a quorum of sixty-four active members (fifteen members appeared via proxy). The proposed amendments were approved and the FAPR constitution was amended.

A. The First Case

Unwilling to proceed like pawns, a few weeks later, on December 10, 2010, the Chessplayers filed a Request for Injunction against FAPR in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, seeking invalidation of the November 20 meeting and the newly adopted constitutional amendments. This request alleged FAPR violated rights guaranteed to its members under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Puerto Rico, and the General Corporations Law of Puerto Rico. FAPR's counterplay was to remove the case to the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico.

The Chessplayers moved to remand, arguing lack of federal jurisdiction and in the alternative, appropriate application of the doctrine of abstention. Characterizing their claims under the United States Constitution as passing references that merely presented an alternative theory for relief, the Chessplayers relied predominantly on issues of Puerto Rico law and described their claims as Commonwealth law issues that in no way depended on the resolution of any substantial federal issues. Alternatively, the Chessplayers asked the district court to abstain from adjudicating any substantial federal questions and instead remandto the Puerto Rico court to allow that court to adjudicate the case on the merits of the Puerto Rico law issues and make moot any federal questions.

The district court denied the Chessplayers' request for remand, ruling they had pled a claim under the United States Constitution, and also denied their request for abstention. The Chessplayers moved to partially vacate the district court's order denying remand, again arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the district court denied this motion. Soon after that, the Chessplayers filed a motion to amend their first request for injunction, voluntarily dismissing the federal claims the district court found in their first case. But, the district court denied this motion as well.

B. The Second Case

Knowing they could not win by resigning, the Chessplayers filed a second Request for Injunction against FAPR again in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico. This second request alleged the same facts as the first, but omitted all claims of violations of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Chessplayers' complaint explicitly waived any claims they might have had under the United States Constitution.

Like the first round, FAPR removed the second case to federal court arguing that it contained identical facts, claims, and parties as the first case, and so the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the second case and supplemental jurisdiction over the related Puerto Rico law claims therein. ¹ FAPR argued the Chessplayers filed this second case in an attempt to divest the district court of the jurisdiction it previously asserted over the first case.

C. The Consolidated Cases

The next day, FAPR moved to consolidate the cases, and the district court granted its request. FAPR then filed an answer to the Chessplayers' second complaint asserting there was no viable cause of action against them because as a private association FAPR was not a state actor and thus was entitled to the court's deference regarding its private determinations. The Chessplayers moved to vacate the consolidation but the district court denied their motion. In response, the Chessplayers moved to remand the second case, stressing all federal claims in the second case were removed and expressly waived,² so there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction warranting removal.

Although the second case had already been removed and consolidated with the first case, FAPR filed a petition with the court the following day to enter an order retaining removal jurisdiction over the second case under the All Writs Act, and/or, in the alternative, enjoining the Chessplayers from prosecuting the second case in state court under either the Anti–Injunction Act or the All Writs Act. The district court denied the Chessplayers' request for remand of the second case, and found moot FAPR's petition, explaining its reasoning in an electronic order:

The Court shall not remand to state court consolidated case 11–1208. Said case presents identical facts and claims to the instant case, and was filed subsequent to this court sustaining the removability of the present case. Plaintiffs, hence, have attempted to thwart this court's removal jurisdiction by filing the second case. Removal of 11–1208 is hence proper under the All–Writs Act in order for this court to sustain its jurisdiction. (emphasis added).

The Chessplayers then filed a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal regarding the district court's denial of their request to remand the second case; the district court denied this motion.

Finding themselves in a closed position, the Chessplayers moved for voluntary dismissal of their United States and Puerto Rico constitutional claims for lack of case or controversy, as both parties initially agreed that there were insufficient allegations to establish state action for the purposes of federal jurisdiction. Ignoring the issue of state action for the moment, FAPR opposed dismissal of the federal claims, asserting the Chessplayers were simply trying to somehow divest the district court of jurisdiction or find a way to have the case returned to state court. The district court denied the Chessplayers' motion.

FAPR then moved for summary judgment dismissing the consolidated cases, arguing its conduct did not constitute state action and the...