Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 85 C 7721.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85 C 7721.,85 C 7721. |
| Citation | 650 F. Supp. 1045 |
| Parties | Enrique SEGNI, Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL OFFICE OF SPAIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Richard J. Witry, McCarthy, Duffy, Neidhart & Snakard, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Franklin P. Auwarter, George A. Martinez, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
On December 24, 1986, this court denied the defendant Commercial Office of Spain's ("Commercial Office") motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that its employment contract with plaintiff Enrique Segni was a "commercial activity" within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 650 F.Supp. 1042 (N.D.Ill.1986). The Commercial Office has now petitioned this court for certification under the Interlocutory Appeals Act and moved to stay the proceedings pending appeal.
The Interlocutory Appeals Act enables this court to certify an order for interlocutory appeal if (1) it involves a controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference on that question of law; and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
A controlling question of law is one which would require reversal on appeal if incorrectly decided. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 755 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885, 95 S.Ct. 152, 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; we cannot hear cases over which we do not have subject matter jurisdiction, and can be reversed for doing so. Our ruling as to subject matter jurisdiction is therefore a controlling question under § 1292(b).
It is also true that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of this lawsuit. If we erred in deciding the jurisdictional question, the litigation ends. Thus the third requirement is also met.
The second requirement, however, is not met, since there is no substantial ground for difference on the question of whether Mr. Segni's employment contract is a "commercial activity" within the meaning of the FSIA. The House Report concerning the commercial activities exception clearly states that the employment of third party nationals by the foreign state in the United States is a commercial activity. See H.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 6604, 6615; see also, State Bank of India v. National Labor Relations Board, 808 F.2d 526, 535 (1986).1
Since the record discloses that Mr. Segni is an Argentine national, and it is undisputed that he is employed by the Commercial Office in this country, there is no room for disagreement. Alternatively, Mr. Segni's contract with the Commercial Office contains no terms to which only a sovereign could agree, and is therefore commercial in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El-Hadad v. Embassy of United Arab Emirates
...of suing his homeland in his host nation's courts. Id. at 165 n. 7 (internal citation omitted). But see Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 650 F.Supp. 1045, 1047 (N.D.Ill.1987) (district court concluded that commercial activity exception applied because plaintiff was an Argentine national......
-
Mister v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co., Civ. No. 81-3006.
...would be substantially advanced by a ruling from the circuit court on the question. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 650 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (N.D.Ill.1987). The first two requirements are met here; the third is not. This action was filed in 1981, alleging racial disc......
-
In re Stoecker
...from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Segni v. Commercial Office Spain, 650 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (N.D.Ill.1987). Although the two issues on appeal in this court involve controlling questions of law on which opinions reasonably d......
-
Boese v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
...Each element of the section 1292(b) test must be met before certification may be granted. Id. (citing Segni v. Commercial Office of Spain, 650 F.Supp. 1045, 1046 (N.D.Ill.1987)). The party seeking interlocutory review has the burden of persuading the court that "exceptional circumstances ju......