Sugar Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Environeering, Inc., Civ. No. 81-1215(PG).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
Writing for the CourtPERÉZ-GIMENÉZ
Citation520 F. Supp. 996
PartiesThe SUGAR CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, Plaintiff, v. ENVIRONEERING, INC., and Federal Insurance Company, Defendant.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 81-1215(PG).
Decision Date24 August 1981

520 F. Supp. 996

The SUGAR CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, Plaintiff,
v.
ENVIRONEERING, INC., and Federal Insurance Company, Defendant.

Civ. No. 81-1215(PG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

August 24, 1981.


520 F. Supp. 997

Rubén O. Figueroa, Figueroa, Nassar & Gallart, Hato Rey, P. R., for plaintiff.

David P. Freedman, O'Neill & Borges, Hato Rey, P. R., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

PERÉZ-GIMENÉZ, District Judge.

This action was originally filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, as an action for breach of contract and damages. Subsequently, defendant corporations Environeering, Inc. (hereinafter Environeering) and Federal Insurance Company, filed a Petition for Removal asserting that co-defendant Environeering has been at the time this action was brought a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, having its principal place of business in the State of Illinois, and that co-defendant Federal Insurance Company has been at the time this action was brought a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, having its principal place of business in the State of New York, while plaintiff, Corporación Azucarera de Puerto Rico (hereinafter Sugar Corporation) is a local corporation organized and existing under Puerto Rican law, having its principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Thus, petitioners invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand to the state court on five grounds:

1. That in a prior and still pending action Daniel Pérez Antequera v. Environeering, Inc., Federal Insurance Company and the Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico, Civil No. 81-2381, Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, Environeering had an opportunity to remove a claim by the Sugar Corporation against it on the basis of the separate and independent claim doctrine of Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1441(c), and at Environeering's failure to do so, it waived its opportunity in the instant case;

2. That:

"The removal is being sought by two parties that at the present are litigating in the state courts of Puerto Rico with the same parties and over essentially the same issues that are being litigated in this case, that had the opportunity, but decided to waive their right to remove the litigation pending in the state courts
520 F. Supp. 998
being totally aware of said alternative. ...";

3. That plaintiff, Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico, is "an alter ego of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who is the real party in interest", and since a state cannot be a citizen of any state, there can be no removal on the basis of diversity;

4. That both Environeering and Federal Insurance Company requested and obtained permission to do business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, thus, waiving any rights to remove the case to the Federal Court;

5. That Environeering's principal place of business is in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and that, therefore, no diversity jurisdiction exists.

1) Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441(c) reads:

"Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction."

In the state court action Environeering and Sugar Corporation were both co-defendants who did not file any cross-claim. Therefore, there was no separate and independent claim or cause of action between Sugar Corporation and Environeering which could be removed to the Federal District Court.

Secondly, even if co-defendants in that case had brought claims against each other, the majority of cases have concluded that a third party defendant or a cross-claim defendant is not entitled to remove the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). 14 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 3724, at 643, and cases therein cited.

2) As to plaintiff's second contention, it should be noted at the outset that the parties in the state court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh, Civ. A. No. 80-1179.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 24 d1 Agosto d1 1981
    ...broad and comprehensive regulation of the process of licensing copyrighted motion pictures conflicts with the objectives of Congress in 520 F. Supp. 996 its enactment of the Copyright Act. For the reasons stated above, I find that the Act conflicts with Congress' grant of rights under the C......
  • Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh, 81-2706
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 20 d2 Julho d2 1982
    ...of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581) (1941)." 520 F.Supp. at 996. Specifically, the trial court ruled that the Pennsylvania Act's prohibitions against advances, against guarantees in combination with percent......
  • Garcia v. Bauza-Salas, BAUZA-SALAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 7 d5 Outubro d5 1988
    ...is affiliated with the government of Puerto Rico but legally independent of it, see Sugar Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Environeering Inc., 520 F.Supp. 996, 998-99 (D.P.R. 1981), requested that the court enjoin Garcia from repackaging sugar until such time as he obtained the required license. Gar......
  • Starlight Sugar Inc. v. Soto, Civil No. 95-2078.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • 21 d4 Dezembro d4 1995
    ...and distinct legal personality apart from the Government of Puerto Rico. Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico v. Environeering, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 996, 998-99 (D.P.R.1981) (citing P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 28, § 242(c)). The Sugar Corporation arranges the refinement and distribution of Puerto Rico-prod......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh, Civ. A. No. 80-1179.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 24 d1 Agosto d1 1981
    ...broad and comprehensive regulation of the process of licensing copyrighted motion pictures conflicts with the objectives of Congress in 520 F. Supp. 996 its enactment of the Copyright Act. For the reasons stated above, I find that the Act conflicts with Congress' grant of rights under the C......
  • Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh, 81-2706
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 20 d2 Julho d2 1982
    ...of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581) (1941)." 520 F.Supp. at 996. Specifically, the trial court ruled that the Pennsylvania Act's prohibitions against advances, against guarantees in combination with percent......
  • Garcia v. Bauza-Salas, BAUZA-SALAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 7 d5 Outubro d5 1988
    ...is affiliated with the government of Puerto Rico but legally independent of it, see Sugar Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Environeering Inc., 520 F.Supp. 996, 998-99 (D.P.R. 1981), requested that the court enjoin Garcia from repackaging sugar until such time as he obtained the required license. Gar......
  • Starlight Sugar Inc. v. Soto, Civil No. 95-2078.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
    • 21 d4 Dezembro d4 1995
    ...and distinct legal personality apart from the Government of Puerto Rico. Sugar Corporation of Puerto Rico v. Environeering, Inc., 520 F.Supp. 996, 998-99 (D.P.R.1981) (citing P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 28, § 242(c)). The Sugar Corporation arranges the refinement and distribution of Puerto Rico-prod......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT