Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corporation
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit; No. 79-1280 (1980)
Facts.
a. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Ramiro Arango and his family refuted the district court’s dismissal of their tort and
breach of contract claims against appellee, Compania Dominincana de Aviacion
(“Dominicana”), the national airline of the Dominican Republic. Dominicana, one of four
defendants against whom suit had originally been filed in a Florida State court.
b. The Arango family brought suite because there vacation tour from Miami, Florida to
the Dominican Republic was halted upon arrival at the Santo Domingo airport because of
their apparent inclusion on a list of “undesirable aliens.” Immigration Officials then
forced the Arango family’s immediate “involuntary re-routing” back to the United States.
This lead them to be first moved to San Juan, Puerto Rico and then the following day to
Port-au-Prince, Haiti where they were apparently left to arrange and pay for their own
return to Miami, which they finally did four days after the original incident.
c. The Plaintiffs, brought suite against four defendants, Guzman Travel advisors
Corporation, a Florida company and the actual vendor of the package tour, Trailways
Travel & Tourism International Corp., also a Florida company and the tour organizer,
Sheraton Hotels & Inns, World Corporation, which is a foreign corporation whose local
hotel was to provide their food and lodging; and then the appelle Dominicana which was
to provide air transportation and “tourist cards” necessary for entering the Dominican
Republic, for damages, unwarranted arrest and battery.
d. The Dominican Republic owns and controls the Dominicana airlines, thus the
Defendant exercised its prerogatives under the Foreign Sovereign Act of 1976, as a
“foreign state” to remove the action to a federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1441.
There Dominicana moved to dismiss the action arguing that has a foreign sovereign it
was immune from jurisdiction under the FSIA and that the Arango’s complaint would not
be met by any relief because all alleged injuries derived from the official acts of the
Dominican immigration authorities, which acts are protected from judicial scrutiny in US
courts by the Act of State Doctrine. The court granted this dismissal, as well as dropped
the suites against the other parties involved.
Questions:
a. The question that must be determined is, if a “foreign state” defendant in a multi-party
suit is itself dismissed, whether or not that decision is final for the other parties involved
as well.
Decisions:
a. In this situation the courts decided to dismiss the appeal of the Arango family and
claim that it was in fact final judgment for all parties involved.
Principals:
a. The court has previously held that when a federal officer exercises his prerogative
under 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1) to remove any “civil action” initiated against him in state
court, the whole case against all defendants involved, federal as well as non-federal is
removed to federal court. So when the “foreign state” (Dominicana) defendant evoked
U.S.C 1441(d), it did in fact carry with it the remaining parties in the state proceeding.
b. Since the airlines was acting as an arm of the government, their actions and those that
followed because of their actions are deemed immune since it was an action of the state,
not an action of a commercial or domestic source.
Conclusion:
This case was important because it allowed for a commercial entity to take on the role of
a sovereign because of its relation to the government, also it established the extent that
the immunity could reach through the dismissal of the charges of the multiple other
organizations also involved in the dispute.
Bibliography
Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corporation, No. 79-1280, 1980 U.S App (Fifth Cir.
Jul. 25 1980)
Submitted:
Kimberly C. Force, October 8, 2009