Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation Page 13

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation general information

Media for Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 07, 1987 in Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation

Gregory H. Ward:

If we win on jurisdiction, then we're back to California without any doubt.

Antonin Scalia:

If you had removed to the Federal Court in Georgia, and you had the separate suit pending in California, you would have had the situation where you'd have two Federal suits, one of which contains as a counterclaim and the other one of which contains as the principal claim the very same contention, right?

Gregory H. Ward:

Yes.

Antonin Scalia:

And you think even under those circumstances, there wouldn't have been a transfer?

I mean, it isn't just... it's only the convenience of the parties and not the fact that you have exactly the same issue involved that the Court could take into account?

It seems a very strange situation.

You would have two Federal suits, one counterclaim and the other one the claim involving exactly the same contention.

We don't have that all the time.

Gregory H. Ward:

But we avoided that in this situation, Your Honor, by having Gulfstream file in State Court and not removing to Federal Court.

Certainly we felt that the issues that would be raised by removing to Federal Court and then filing an action in State Court in California would increase Mayacamas' difficulties in getting the case tried in California rather than decrease them.

Antonin Scalia:

If it isn't the transfer for the convenience of the party that gets rid of that situation, there must be some other doctrine that gets rid of that situation because you know, I'm just unaware of that proceeding with two Federal courts adjudicating the very same thing.

Gregory H. Ward:

I agree, Your Honor.

Byron R. White:

Although, if there are two Federal courts, one or the other of them's going to stay, isn't it?

Gregory H. Ward:

That certainly would be the presumption.

William H. Rehnquist:

Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Mr. Bien, you have four minutes remaining.

Elliot L. Bien:

Thank you.

Just to begin with the last point, I think it's the Colorado River and the Kerotest decision on which it relied in the two Federal court situation that would create the solid case law basis for one or the other of those Federal courts deferring to the other.

There's a strong presumption in that situation that you don't have two duplicative Federal court law suits.

And I think the law is very strong and certainly clear on that.

The question arose by Justice Scalia and Stevens about whether there might be a waiver of objection to personal jurisdiction in this situation.

The Removal Statute itself says that the defendant in a State court can remove any time the District Court would have had original jurisdiction, whether diversity or federal question.

And I think it's clear that we're talking about subject matter jurisdiction then.

That there's no premise in the Removal Statute itself that there must be in personam jurisdiction.

John Paul Stevens:

You say it's clear.

Elliot L. Bien:

Well, the next comment that I was going to make was that this Court had a decision called Polizzi v. Kels Magazines, I can give you the cite now or subsequently, in which there had been a removal.

John Paul Stevens:

Do it now.

Elliot L. Bien:

Certainly.

Polizzi v. Kels Magazines, 345 U.S. 663.

John Paul Stevens:

Thank you.