Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federación De Ajedrez De Puerto Rico, Inc.
734 F.3d 28
1st Cir.2013Background
- Six FAPR members (the Chessplayers) challenged actions at a November 20, 2010 extraordinary federation meeting that amended FAPR's constitution and excluded certain members from participation.
- Chessplayers alleged violations of their speech, association, and voting rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Puerto Rico Constitution, and Puerto Rico corporate law; they sought injunctive relief in Puerto Rico Superior Court.
- FAPR removed the first suit to federal district court under § 1441; the district court denied remand. Chessplayers then filed a second, nearly identical state suit expressly waiving federal claims.
- The district court consolidated the two actions, relied on the All Writs Act to retain the second case, and denied remand of the second case.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment the district court granted judgment for FAPR, dismissing federal constitutional claims (finding no state action) and rejecting judicial intervention on Puerto Rico-law claims.
- On appeal the First Circuit upheld federal jurisdiction over the first suit, held the district court lacked authority to remove the second suit under the All Writs Act and must remand it to state court, and remanded some Puerto Rico-law claims for further consideration on injunction factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the first suit | Chessplayers: federal claims were incidental/alternative to state-law claims; case predominately a Commonwealth-law dispute | FAPR: first complaint plainly alleged violations of U.S. constitutional rights and so raised a federal question permitting removal | Held: first complaint alleged direct federal constitutional claims; removal under §1441 valid; district court had jurisdiction |
| Whether the All Writs Act authorized removal/retention of the second, expressly non-federal suit | Chessplayers: second suit waived federal claims; no basis for federal jurisdiction or removal | FAPR: second suit was a bad-faith attempt to evade federal jurisdiction; district court may protect its jurisdiction (invoking All Writs/Anti‑Injunction Act) | Held: All Writs Act cannot supply removal jurisdiction; second suit lacked removable federal question; district court erred — remand second suit to Puerto Rico court |
| Whether FAPR's actions constituted state action under U.S. and Puerto Rico Constitutions | Chessplayers: FAPR accepted public funds and acted to affect public-funded programs, creating state action | FAPR: private association; its actions are private and not attributable to the state | Held: Chessplayers do not contest dismissal of constitutional claims on appeal; district court's dismissal of those state-action constitutional claims stands |
| Whether FAPR's internal actions violated its constitution or Puerto Rico law (warranting injunction) — specific issues: exclusions, proxy voting, freezing renewals, barring new members, e-mail notice | Chessplayers: Añeses' ‘‘active’’ definition, barring renewals/new members, and e-mail-only notice violated FAPR rules and Puerto Rico law and were arbitrary/capricious; thus injunction appropriate | FAPR: acted within its rules and customary practice; proxies and membership rules were permissible interpretations | Held: Court found (1) exclusion via an unauthorized adoption of FIDE "active" standard was arbitrary (plaintiff wins); (2) freezing same-day renewals was improper (plaintiff wins); (3) e-mail-only notice without member consent violated Puerto Rico law (plaintiff wins); (4) proxy voting and barring new members were not arbitrary under the constitution (defendant wins). Remanded to district court to consider remaining injunction factors for the meritorious claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (federal-question jurisdiction and federalism principles govern removal)
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (distinguishing direct federal causes of action from embedded federal questions)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (a complaint seeking relief directly under the U.S. Constitution presents a federal question)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (All Writs Act is a residual source of authority and cannot be used to circumvent statutory removal procedures)
- BIW Deceived v. Local S6, Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of Am., 132 F.3d 824 (supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from same nucleus of operative facts)
- R.I. Fishermen's Alliance v. R.I. Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42 (framework for identifying direct federal questions vs. embedded federal issues)