Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation Page 14

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

Elliot L. Bien:

It's a 1953 decision in which this Court ordered the District Court following removal to proceed to examine the challenge to in personam jurisdiction to the sufficiency of the service of process.

That case, and also the Morris Treatise also cites Section 1448 of Title 28 as instructing the District Court following a removal, to look into all questions of the adequacy of service of process.

And the Polizzi decision, I think, comes pretty close to the question that you raised, that certainly there would be no waiver by Mayacamas in that situation.

I think some of the colloquy about the trial setting, one judge set its trail to effectuate the purposes of the Georgia Priority Statute, and there was a certain lightness about the colloquy, and Mr. Ward indicated that they were trying to achieve a certain practical advantage in this fashion.

I'm simply motivated to cite the language that this Court used just a few years ago in the San Carlos Apache case which I had mentioned earlier, that when you've got a Federal Court proceeding on a parallel track with a State Court lawsuit over the same issue, now I'm quoting,

"it's an unseemly and destructive race. "

And I think it's that very spectacle even though it can be, I think, made light of in some fashion, if you look at it that way, that this Court held is something that's very disfavored as a matter of federalism.

I think that that same concern was expressed by the framers in the debates that I cited in my brief.

I think that same concern about avoiding Federal court/State court tensions in litigation of this kind has been cited with concern over and over again by this Court, most recently in the Pennzoil Texaco case in a different context of younger abstention.

But there once again, you talk about the premise upon which basis our federal system was established, that the Federal courts are not to gratuitously intervene in situations where it would put itself into a posture of this very kind of conflict and potential tension with the State court.

With respect, my opponent belittles those concerns about Federal and state relationships as something that, and I'm quoting, "of dubious relevance" in today's world of modern interstate commerce, as if this nation had no further reason to be concerned about conflicts between the national courts and the state courts.

With respect, I think that's a striking notion.

I think this case can be seen as just perhaps a garden variety procedural dispute and so forth, but I think with removal, it implicates a very fundamental Federal concern.

Thank you for your attention.

William H. Rehnquist:

Thank you, Mr. Bien.

The case is submitted.