TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reyes v. Penoci

Luis Angel REYES v. Elias C. PENOCI

Reyes v. Penoci, 202 F. Supp. 436 (D.P.R. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 8, 1962
Docket
No. Civ. No. 72-61
Judges
Nazario, Ruiz
Citations
202 F. Supp. 4361962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3918

Opinion of the Court — Ruiznazario

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

RUIZ-NAZARIO, Chief Judge. .

This action is now before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss in which it is alleged that this Court is without jurisdiction for lack of diversity.

In the complaint, the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the diversity provisions of Sec. 1332(a), Title 28 U.S.C.A.

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss it was shown by the defendant and conceded by the plaintiff that the defendant is not a citizen or subject of any foreign state, nor a citizen of state different from that of the plaintiff, i. e. he is stateless.

Therefore, this Court does not appear to have jurisdiction of this action under the provisions of Section 1332(a), Title 28, invoked by plaintiff, nor under Sec. 863, Title 48 U.S.C.A.

A stateless person, such as defendant Penoei has been conceded to be, is not a citizen or subject of a foreign state either within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (a) (2), nor within the meaning of 48 U.S.C.A. § 863 . See: Shoemaker v. Malaxa (2d Cir.), 241 F.2d 129 ; Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein (D.C.S.D.N.Y.) 133 F.Supp. 496 .

The plaintiff has so conceded in his memorandum.

As this Court is without jurisdiction in this matter, it has no power whatsoever to grant the request by plaintiff in his brief that the dismissal of the action be ordered conditioned upon defendant’s acceptance of service of Commonwealth Court process.

It is, therefore, ordered that defendant’s motion be and is hereby granted, and that this action be, and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 11974: 119632026peak 1963 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list