# Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 29, 1998 · 139 F.3d 1368

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415384

## Case

- **Full name:** Ligia PACHECO DE PEREZ, Individually, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AT&T COMPANY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees; Cruz SIGALA, and Norma Sofia De Sigala, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Cruz Fernando Sigala and Monica Huornug, as Succession Representative of Corma Sofia De Sigala, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AT&T COMPANY, Et Al, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** April 29, 1998
- **Citations:** 139 F.3d 1368; 1998 WL 207890
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Black
- **Judges:** Black, Barkett, Propst
- **Cited by:** 125 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415384

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Privileges and Immunities Clause “requires each state to provide access to its courts ‘to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens’ ”
- noting that, “[wjhere a state law action has as a substantial element an issue involving foreign relations or foreign policy matters, federal jurisdiction is present” but concluding that a suit brought by Venezuelan citizens injured in a pipeline explosion did not affect Ameri…
- holding that the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental Federal jurisdiction in situations where “[F]ederal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking”
- holding that such a threat would not supply exceptional circumstances
- declining to take a position, but holding that removal was improper even if the All Writs Act might authorize removal in some cases

## Opinion text

BLACK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully agree with the majority that federal question jurisdiction cannot be predicated on either theory addressed by the district court — res judicata or the federal treaty with Venezuela. Although the majority opinion is thorough and well-reasoned, I would remand the case for the district court to determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists based on either the All Writs Act or the federal common law of international relations and whether removal is proper because of fraudulent joinder. See Citro Florida, Inc. v. Citrovale, S.A., 760 F.2d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir.1985). These three theories require an examination of the factual record, a function uniquely within the province of the district court. Lee v. Celotex Corp., 764 F.2d 1489, 1492-93 (11th Cir.1985).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415384. Public record. Not legal advice.