Pedro MENENDEZ, Appellant, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 19139.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 17, 1962.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1962.
311 F.2d 437
It is noted that, unlike the Second Circuit in the Banco case, we do not have in the records before us an expression of any kind from the State Department. None has been requested. With the fullest cognizance of the responsibility of the executive branch in the field of foreign relationships, we do not perceive any necessity for formal comment by the State Department about these cases.
Consistently, repeatedly and currently, the State Department has expressed its conclusion that our courts are not restrained from adjudicating the effect of the decrees of the Castro government in Cuba. This has now been made so clear we feel full reliance by the courts upon such expressions may be made without the necessity of a formal enunciation in each and every such case. Indeed, the wisdom of requesting another, and yet another, statement on the identical subject seems quite doubtful. It is specifically noted that there was judicial response to the executive branch‘s change in approach in Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres, S. A., supra.
The other grounds asserted in support of these orders of dismissal have been considered and we find none of them, alone or together, sufficient. The crowded condition of the trial docket, the difficulty in determining applicable law in the construction of the contract, for example, are not reason enough to deny adjudication on the merits in view of our treatment here of the two broader issues. Residual issues raised on the present status of the pleadings are properly determinable by the District Court on the merits.
The orders dismissing the complaints are reversed and the causes remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMERON, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the result.
On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
In reversing the dismissal of this complaint, and remanding for further proceedings, we noted then, and repeat now, that residual issues raised on the present status of the pleadings are properly determinable by the District Court on the merits. We carefully considered and reviewed the argument of appellee that the doctrine of forum non conveniens or Act of State doctrine, one or the other, barred further litigation. Our review of that holding in the light of the reiterated contentions of appellee in this petition does not require further hearing.
Appellee further suggests here that the Bretton Woods Agreement and certain Cuban currency control statutes require dismissal of this complaint. Since the entry of our opinion in this case this Court has on November 7, 1962 rejected this contention in Pan American Life Insurance Company v. Inocencio Blanco, 311 F.2d 424.
The petition for rehearing is Denied.
TABACALERA SEVERIANO JORGE, S.A., Appellant, v. STANDARD CIGAR COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 19101.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 17, 1962.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1962.
311 F.2d 438
Morris E. White, William A. Gillen, Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CARSWELL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
We conclude from a careful review of the entire record that the District Court‘s dismissal of the complaint must be reversed for the reasons stated in our opinion of this date in the case of Menendez Rodriguez v. Pan American Life Insurance Company and (Vento Jaime v. Pan American Life Insurance Company) 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 429.
The residual questions of law in this case not specifically dealt with in our opinion above are more properly determinable by the District Court upon full hearing on the merits.
This cause is reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion in the Rodriguez case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CAMERON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
On Petition for Rehearing
Before CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CARSWELL, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The factual distinctions between this case and Menendez Rodriguez v. Pan American Life Insurance Company, etc., 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 429, referred to by appellee in its petition for rehearing do not require a different application of law. For this reason, and for the reasons stated in denial of petition for rehearing this date in the case of Menendez Rodriguez v. Pan American Life Insurance Company, etc., supra, this petition for rehearing is Denied.