Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federacion de Ajedrez de PR, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federacion de Ajedrez de PR, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/37

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1022

RAFAEL ORTI Z- BONI LLA; LUI S J . TORRES- BAUZ;J UAN MART N SANTA- TORRES; J ULI O GUZMN- FREI RE;

CRI STBAL VEGA- ADORNO; J UAN J AVI ER HERNNDEZ- LEBRN,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

FERNANDO MART NEZ- BUI TRAGO,

P l a i n t i f f ,

v.

FEDERACI N DE AJ EDREZ DE PUERTO RI CO, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Donat o Ri ver a- de J ess, f or appel l ant s.Al bni z Cour et - Fuent es, wi t h whom Lee R. Sepul vado- Ramos,

J or ge A. Gal i ber - Snchez, and Sepul vado & Mal donado, PSC wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 21, 2013


2/37

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. I n t hi s case, we ar e cal l ed

upon t o r ef eree a di sput e between a gr oup of chess pl ayers and

t hei r opponent , t he Puer t o Ri co Chess Feder at i on. Havi ng come t o

a st al emate over event s l eadi ng up t o and dur i ng a chess f eder at i on

meet i ng, t he chess pl ayer s f i l ed sui t agai nst t he f eder at i on i n

Puer t o Ri co Super i or Cour t , al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t hei r r i ght s

pr ot ect ed by the Uni t ed St at es and Puer t o Ri co const i t ut i ons and

Puer t o Ri co l aw. The chess f eder at i on r emoved t he case t o f eder al

cour t pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1441. The chess pl ayer s f i l ed a

second case, si mi l ar t o t he f i r st , agai n i n Puer t o Ri co cour t , t hi s

t i me excl udi ng and wai vi ng any cl ai ms under f eder al l aw. The chess

f eder at i on r emoved t hi s case as wel l , t he di st r i ct cour t

consol i dat ed t he t wo, and decl ar ed j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second

case under t he Al l Wr i t s Act , 28 U. S. C. 1651( a) . The di st r i ct

cour t ul t i matel y gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor of t he chess

f eder at i on and di smi ssed t he chess pl ayer s' cl ai ms. They now

appeal , f i r st chal l engi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s exer ci se of

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hei r cl ai ms and t hen t he cour t ' s di smi ssal of

sever al of t hei r Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms. Af t er car ef ul

consi der at i on we af f i r m i n par t and r ever se i n par t .

Background

Appel l ant s Raf ael Or t i z- Boni l l a, Lui s J os Tor r es- Bauz,

J uan Mar t n Sant a- Tor r es, J ul i o Guzmn- Fr ei r e, Cr i st bal Vega-

Ador no, and J uan J avi er Her nndez- Lebr n ( col l ect i vel y " t he

-2-


3/37

Chesspl ayer s" ) , are member s of t he Puer t o Ri co Chess Feder at i on,

appel l ee Feder aci n de Aj edr ez de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. ( "FAPR") . FAPR

i s a pr i vat e, not - f or - pr of i t cor por at i on, or gani zed under t he l aws

of t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, est abl i shed f or t he pr omot i on

and di ssemi nat i on of chess. As a member of t he i nt er nat i onal chess

f eder at i on, Fdr at i on I nt er nat i onal e des Eches ( "FI DE") , FAPR al so

par t i ci pat es i n i nt er nat i onal chess compet i t i ons.

Ever y two year s, FAPR el ect s a Boar d of Di r ect ors i n

char ge of t he admi ni st r at i on of t he af f ai r s of t he or gani zat i on.

The el ect i on of i nt er est i n t hi s case was schedul ed t o t ake pl ace

at t he or di nar y meet i ng schedul ed f or J anuar y 2011. On November 7,

2010, one of t he Chesspl ayer s, Cr i st bal Vega- Ador no, submi t t ed hi s

candi dacy f or FAPR Presi dent i n t he upcomi ng el ect i on. The next

day, t en FAPR members submi t t ed a pet i t i on cal l i ng f or an

ext r aordi nar y meet i ng on November 20, 2010, t o amend FAPR' s

const i t ut i on and r est r uct ur e i t s or gani zat i on admi ni st r at i vel y and

f i scal l y.

FAPR' s t hen- admi ni st r at or , Vance Ber r os, sent a message

t o t he gr oup e- mai l addr ess "aj edr ezpr @yahoo. com" ( i t i s not

ent i r el y cl ear whi ch member s subscr i bed t o t hi s group e- mai l

addr ess) . Ber r os' s message cont ai ned a not i f i cat i on wr i t t en by

FAPR' s t hen- Presi dent , Omar Aeses Bocanegr a, summoni ng al l act i ve

member s t o a speci al meet i ng t o be hel d on November 20, f or t he

pur pose of amendi ng t he FAPR const i t ut i on. Aeses' s message

-3-


4/37

cont ai ned the t ext of t he pr oposed amendment s and a sect i on t i t l ed

"The Ri ght t o Par t i ci pat e i n Meet i ngs" t hat f eat ur ed excer pt s f r om

t he FAPR const i t ut i on per t ai ni ng t o member shi p, vot i ng r i ght s, and

new members. Fi ve members, i ncl udi ng t hr ee of t he Chesspl ayers,

r esponded t o Aeses t wi ce, chal l engi ng t he val i di t y of t he

ext r aor di nary meet i ng. Aeses di d not r espond t o t hose messages.

When sever al member s of FAPR, i ncl udi ng some of t he

Chesspl ayer s, ar r i ved at t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng t hey wer e bar r ed

f r om par t i ci pat i ng. Aeses excl uded t hose member s cl ai mi ng t hey

were not act i ve member s i n good st andi ng and deni ed per mi ss i on t o

ot her member s want i ng t o r enew t hei r member shi ps on t he spot i n

order t o par t i ci pate i n t he meet i ng. And so t he meet i ng was hel d

wi t hout t hose member s, wi t h a quorum of si xt y- f our act i ve member s

( f i f t een member s appear ed vi a pr oxy) . The proposed amendment s wer e

approved and t he FAPR const i t ut i on was amended.

A. The First Case

Unwi l l i ng t o pr oceed l i ke pawns, a f ew weeks l at er , on

December 10, 2010, t he Chesspl ayer s f i l ed a Request f or I nj unct i on

agai nst FAPR i n t he Super i or Cour t of Puer t o Ri co, seeki ng

i nval i dat i on of t he November 20 meet i ng and t he newl y adopted

const i t ut i onal amendment s. Thi s r equest al l eged FAPR vi ol at ed

r i ght s guar ant eed t o i t s member s under t he Const i t ut i on of t he

Uni t ed St at es, t he Const i t ut i on of Puer t o Ri co, and t he Gener al

-4-


5/37

Corporat i ons Law of Puer t o Ri co. FAPR' s count er pl ay was to r emove

t he case t o t he Feder al Di st r i ct Cour t of Puer t o Ri co.

The Chesspl ayer s moved t o r emand, ar gui ng l ack of f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on and i n t he al t er nat i ve, appr opr i at e appl i cat i on of t he

doct r i ne of abst ent i on. Char act er i zi ng t hei r cl ai ms under t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on as passi ng r ef er ences t hat mer el y

pr esent ed an al t er nat i ve t heor y f or r el i ef , t he Chesspl ayer s r el i ed

pr edomi nant l y on i ssues of Puer t o Ri co l aw and descr i bed thei r

cl ai ms as Commonweal t h l aw i ssues t hat i n no way depended on t he

r esol ut i on of any subst ant i al f eder al i ssues. Al t er nat i vel y, t he

Chesspl ayer s asked t he di st r i ct cour t t o abst ai n f r omadj udi cat i ng

any subst ant i al f eder al quest i ons and i nst ead r emand t o the Puer t o

Ri co cour t t o al l ow t hat cour t t o adj udi cat e t he case on t he mer i t s

of t he Puer t o Ri co l aw i ssues and make moot any f eder al quest i ons.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he Chesspl ayer s' r equest f or

r emand, r ul i ng they had pl ed a cl ai m under t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on, and al so deni ed t hei r r equest f or abst ent i on. The

Chesspl ayer s moved t o par t i al l y vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s order

denyi ng r emand, agai n ar gui ng l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on;

t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s mot i on. Soon af t er t hat , t he

Chesspl ayer s f i l ed a mot i on t o amend t hei r f i r st r equest f or

i nj uncti on, vol unt ar i l y di smi ssi ng t he f eder al cl ai ms t he di st r i ct

cour t f ound i n t hei r f i r st case. But , t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

t hi s mot i on as wel l .

-5-


6/37

B. The Second Case

Knowi ng t hey coul d not wi n by r esi gni ng, t he Chesspl ayer s

f i l ed a second Request f or I nj unct i on agai nst FAPR agai n i n t he

Super i or Cour t of Puer t o Ri co. Thi s second r equest al l eged t he

same f act s as t he f i r st , but omi t t ed al l cl ai ms of vi ol at i ons of

r i ght s guar ant eed by t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. The

Chesspl ayer s' compl ai nt expl i ci t l y wai ved any cl ai ms t hey mi ght

have had under t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.

Li ke t he f i r st r ound, FAPR r emoved t he second case t o

f eder al cour t ar gui ng t hat i t cont ai ned i dent i cal f act s, cl ai ms,

and par t i es as t he f i r st case, and so t he di st r i ct cour t had

subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second case and suppl ement al

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he r el at ed Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms t herei n. 1

FAPR argued the Chesspl ayer s f i l ed thi s second case i n an at t empt

t o di vest t he di str i ct cour t of t he j ur i sdi ct i on i t pr evi ousl y

asser t ed over t he f i r st case.

C. The Consolidated Cases

The next day, FAPR moved t o consol i dat e t he cases, and

t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed i t s request . FAPR t hen f i l ed an answer

t o the Chesspl ayer s' second compl ai nt asser t i ng t her e was no vi abl e

cause of act i on agai nst t hem because as a pr i vat e associ at i on FAPR

1 Accor di ng t o FAPR' s t r ansl at i on of t he second r equest ,par agr aph t went y- f our al l eged vi ol at i ons of "r i ght s t hat ar ef eder al i n or i gi n ( under t he Uni t ed St at es l egal syst em) " i naddi t i on t o r i ght s pr otect ed by t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co.

-6-


7/37

was not a st at e act or and t hus was ent i t l ed t o t he cour t ' s

def er ence r egar di ng i t s pr i vat e det er mi nat i ons. The Chesspl ayer s

moved t o vacat e t he consol i dat i on but t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

t hei r mot i on. I n r esponse, t he Chesspl ayer s moved t o r emand t he

second case, st r essi ng al l f eder al cl ai ms i n t he second case wer e

r emoved and expressl y wai ved, 2 so t her e was no f eder al subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on war r ant i ng r emoval .

Al t hough t he second case had al r eady been r emoved and

consol i dat ed wi t h t he f i r st case, FAPR f i l ed a pet i t i on wi t h t he

cour t t he f ol l owi ng day to ent er an order r et ai ni ng r emoval

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second case under t he Al l Wr i t s Act , and/ or ,

i n t he al t er nat i ve, enj oi ni ng t he Chesspl ayer s f r ompr osecut i ng t he

second case i n st at e cour t under ei t her t he Ant i - I nj unct i on Act or

t he Al l Wr i t s Act . The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he Chesspl ayer s'

r equest f or r emand of t he second case, and f ound moot FAPR' s

pet i t i on, expl ai ni ng i t s r easoni ng i n an el ect r oni c or der :

The Cour t shal l not r emand t o st at e cour t consol i dat edcase 11- 1208. Sai d case pr esent s i dent i cal f act s andcl ai ms t o t he i nst ant case, and was f i l ed subsequent t ot hi s cour t sust ai ni ng t he r emovabi l i t y of t he pr esentcase. Pl ai nt i f f s, hence, have at t empt ed t o t hwar t t hi scour t ' s r emoval j ur i sdi ct i on by f i l i ng t he second case.

2 I n t hei r mot i on t o remand, t he Chesspl ayer s al so expl ai ned

FAPR r el i ed upon an er r oneous Engl i sh t r ansl at i on of t he secondr equest , "t he cl ai ms of t he co- pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case ar epr ot ect ed by r i ght s t hat ar e f eder al i n or i gi n. " Accor di ng t o t heChesspl ayer s, an accur at e t r ansl at i on of par agr aph t went y- f ourst at es t hei r cl ai ms "coul d be pr ot ect ed by r i ght s t hat ar e f eder ali n or i gi n. " The Chesspl ayer s ar gued t hi s cor r ect t r ansl at i on makescl ear t hei r second case pl eads no f eder al cl ai ms.

-7-


8/37

Removal of 11- 1208 i s hence pr oper under t he Al l - Wr i t sAct i n or der f or t hi s cour t t o sustai n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on.( emphasi s added) .

The Chesspl ayer s t hen f i l ed a mot i on f or l eave t o f i l e an

i nt er l ocut or y appeal r egar di ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of t hei r

r equest t o r emand t he second case; t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s

mot i on.

Fi ndi ng themsel ves i n a cl osed posi t i on, t he Chesspl ayer s

moved f or vol unt ar y di smi ssal of t hei r Uni t ed St at es and Puer t o

Ri co const i t ut i onal cl ai ms f or l ack of case or cont r over sy, as bot h

par t i es i ni t i al l y agr eed t hat t her e wer e i nsuf f i ci ent al l egat i ons

t o est abl i sh st at e acti on f or t he pur poses of f eder al j ur i sdi cti on.

I gnor i ng t he i ssue of st ate act i on f or t he moment , FAPR opposed

di smi ssal of t he f eder al cl ai ms, asser t i ng t he Chesspl ayer s wer e

si mpl y tr yi ng t o somehow di vest t he di st r i ct cour t of j ur i sdi ct i on

or f i nd a way t o have t he case r et ur ned t o st at e cour t . The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he Chesspl ayer s' mot i on.

FAPR t hen moved f or summar y j udgment di smi ssi ng t he

consol i dat ed cases, ar gui ng i t s conduct di d not const i t ut e st at e

act i on and t he Chesspl ayer s' Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms di d not war r ant

j udi ci al i nt er vent i on i nt o t he af f ai r s of FAPR as a pr i vat e

associ at i on, and t hey f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t he f our cri t er i a

r equi r ed f or an awar d of pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. The Chesspl ayer s

opposed, argui ng f or summary j udgment i n t hei r f avor on what t hey

asser t ed was now a r equest f or per manent i nj unct i on. The di st r i ct

-8-


9/37

cour t consi der ed FAPR' s mot i on as i t appl i ed t o t he Chesspl ayer s'

r equest f or a per manent i nj unct i on, ul t i mat el y gr ant i ng summar y

j udgment i n f avor of FAPR, and di smi ssed t he Chesspl ayer s' cl ai ms

under t he Uni t ed St at es and Puer t o Ri co const i t ut i ons pr emi sed on

st at e act i on by FAPR. As t o t he Chesspl ayer s' Puer t o Ri co l aw

cl ai ms, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat FAPR' s act i ons di d not

war r ant j udi ci al i nt er vent i on and di smi ssed t he cl ai ms. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s or der di d not i ncl ude any di scussi on of t he

r equi r ement s f or per manent i nj unct i on beyond success on t he mer i t s.

Checkmat ed, t he Chesspl ayer s now appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant

of summar y j udgment , ar gui ng bot h cases shoul d have been r emanded

t o t he Puer t o Ri co cour t f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on.

As t o t he mer i t s of t hei r cl ai ms, t hey do not appeal t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s di smi ssal of t hei r cl ai ms under t he Uni t ed St at es and

Puer t o Ri co const i t ut i ons, but asser t t hei r Commonweal t h cl ai ms

shoul d have been deci ded, on t he mer i t s, i n t hei r f avor . We have

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1291.

Discussion

We di vi de our anal ysi s i nt o t wo par t s. I n t he f i r st we

di scuss t he i ssues concer ni ng f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on,

and t hen addr ess t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of t he

Chesspl ayer s' Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms.

-9-


10/37

A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Chesspl ayer s gener al l y asser t t hat bot h cases

bel onged i n t he Puer t o Ri co cour t and not f eder al di st r i ct cour t .

FAPR cont ends t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y deni ed remand of bot h

cases. To r esol ve t hi s i ssue, we must det er mi ne whet her t he

di st r i ct cour t had f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he

cases. We r evi ew quest i ons of f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on

de novo, when t he r el evant f act s ar e not i n di sput e, and t he

r emovi ng par t y bears t he bur den of per suasi on f or t he exi st ence of

f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on. Samaan v. St . J oseph Hosp. , 670 F. 3d 21, 27

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; BI W Decei ved v. Local S6, I ndus. Uni on of Mar i ne

& Shi pbui l di ng Worker s of Am. , 132 F. 3d 824, 830- 31 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . We begi n by set t i ng f or t h some gui di ng pr i nci pl es.

When a ci vi l acti on i s or i gi nal l y f i l ed i n st at e cour t ,

r emoval t o f eder al cour t i s pr oper onl y i f t he act i on coul d have

i ni t i al l y been br ought i n f eder al cour t . 28 U. S. C. 1441( a) .

Thi s i s so because of t he " i mpor t ant f eder al i smconcer ns at pl ay i n

consi der i ng r emoval j ur i sdi ct i on. " Rossel l - Gonzl ez v. Cal der n-

Ser r a, 398 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Fr anchi se Tax Bd.

v. Const r . Labor er s Vacat i on Tr ust f or S. Cal . , 463 U. S. 1, 7- 8

( 1983) . For cases, l i ke t hi s one, wher e t her e i s no di ver si t y of

ci t i zenshi p bet ween par t i es, r emoval j ur i sdi ct i on t ur ns on whet her

t he case f al l s wi t hi n "f eder al quest i on" j ur i sdi cti on: "The

di str i ct cour t s shal l have or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on of al l ci vi l

-10-


11/37

act i ons ar i si ng under t he Const i t ut i on, l aws, or t r eat i es of t he

Uni t ed St at es. " 28 U. S. C. 1331. But t her e i s "no mechani cal

t est f or det er mi ni ng when an act i on ar i s[ es] under f eder al l aw. "

R. I . Fi sher men' s Al l i ance, I nc. , v. R. I . Dep' t of Envt l . Mgmt . , 585

F. 3d 42, 47- 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( ci t i ng Franchi se Tax Bd. , 463 U. S.

at 8) . As t he Supr eme Cour t has not ed, t he phr ase "ar i si ng under "

has "r esi st ed al l at t empt s t o f r ame a si ngl e, pr eci se def i ni t i on

f or det er mi ni ng whi ch cases f al l wi t hi n, and whi ch cases f al l

out s i de, t he or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on of t he di st r i ct cour t s . "

Fr anchi se Tax Bd. , 463 U. S. at 8.

The j ur i sdi ct i onal quest i on i s det er mi ned f r om what

appear s on t he pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m, wi t hout r ef er ence t o any ot her

pl eadi ngs. Templ et on Bd. of Sewer Comm' r s v. Am. Ti ssue Mi l l s of

Mass. , I nc. , 352 F. 3d 33, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Ther e ar e t wo t ypes

of act i ons t hat may come wi t hi n f eder al quest i on j ur i sdi ct i on. The

f i r st cat egor y "i nvol ves di r ect f eder al quest i ons; t hat i s, sui t s

i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads a cause of act i on t hat has i t s r oot s

i n f eder al l aw ( say, a cl ai m pr emi sed on t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on or on a f eder al st at ut e) . " R. I . Fi sher men' s Al l i ance,

585 F. 3d at 48. These cases, whi ch const i t ut e t he "vast maj or i t y"

of cases br ought under t he gener al f eder al quest i on j ur i sdi ct i on of

t he di st r i ct cour t s, ar e t hose "i n whi ch f eder al l aw cr eat es t he

cause of act i on. " Mer r el l Dow Pharm. I nc. v. Thompson, 478 U. S.

804, 808 ( 1986) . Where a compl ai nt " i s so dr awn as to seek

-11-


12/37

r ecover y di r ect l y under t he Const i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed

St at es, " t he f eder al cour t must ent er t ai n t he sui t . Bel l v. Hood,

327 U. S. 678, 681 ( 1946) ; see al so Or t i z De Ar r oyo v. Bar cel o, 765

F. 2d 275, 279 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) .

I f a cl ai mdoes not al l ege a f eder al cause of act i on, "we

must i nqui r e i nt o whet her some el ement of t he [ pl ai nt i f f ' s] cl ai m

depends on t he r esol ut i on of a subst ant i al , di sput ed quest i on of

f eder al l aw. " Templ et on, 352 F. 3d at 36. These const i t ut e t he

second ( and mor e cont r over si al ) cat egor y of cases, t hose wi t h an

"embedded f eder al quest i on, " meani ng sui t s i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f

pl eads a st at e- l aw cause of act i on t hat necessar i l y t ur ns on some

const r uct i on of f eder al l aw. I d. at 37 ( ci t i ng Mer r el l Dow Phar m.

I nc. , 478 U. S. at 808- 09) ; Al mond v. Capi t al Pr ops. , I nc. , 212 F. 3d

20, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . These ar e cases wher e t he i ssue i s

gover ned by st at e l aw, but "a f eder al i ssue i s deci si ve t o t he

di sput e and t he f eder al i ngr edi ent . . . i s suf f i ci ent l y

subst ant i al t o conf er t he ar i si ng under j ur i sdi ct i on. " One & Ken

Val l ey Housi ng Gr p. v. Me. St ate Hous. Aut h. , 716 F. 3d 215, 224

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng W. 14t h St .

Commerci al Cor p. v. 5 W. 14t h Owner s Cor p. , 815 F. 2d 188, 196 (2d

Ci r . 1987) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n eval uat i ng t he

const i t ut i onal cl ai ms, we do not pass on t he mer i t s of t he case.

See Or t i z De Ar r oyo, 765 F. 2d at 279. "A f eder al cour t t hat

exer ci ses f eder al quest i on j ur i sdi ct i on over a si ngl e cl ai m may

-12-


13/37

al so asser t suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over al l st at e- l aw cl ai ms

t hat ar i se f r om t he same nucl eus of oper at i ve f act s. " BI W

Decei ved, 132 F. 3d at 833; see 28 U. S. C. 1367( a) . Wi t h t hese

pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we t ur n our anal ysi s t o t he r emoval of t he

Chesspl ayer s' f i r st case.

1. The First Case

The f i r st r equest f or i nj unct i on, t he Chesspl ayer s ar gue,

shoul d have been r emanded back t o t he Puer t o Ri co cour t f or l ack of

f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. Accor di ng t o t he

Chesspl ayer s, t he f i r st case mer el y ment i oned t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on and r el i ed pr edomi nant l y on Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms

t hat di d not depend on t he r esol ut i on of a f eder al quest i on. They

f ur t her asser t any r ef er ences made t o t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on wer e onl y al t er nat i ve l egal t heor i es f or t hei r Puer t o

Ri co l aw cl ai ms. FAPR cont ends t hat on i t s f ace, t he f i r st case

al l eged vi ol at i ons of f eder al const i t ut i onal r i ght s and t her e i s

not hi ng t her ei n t o suggest t he Chesspl ayer s i nt ended t o l i mi t t hei r

cl ai ms t o Puer t o Ri co l aw. 3

FAPR ef f ect ed r emoval of t he f i r st case pur suant t o

1441, so we begi n by aski ng whet her t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t

woul d have had or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on over t he f i r st case, had i t

3 On appeal , t he Chesspl ayer s do not r epr i se t hei r argumentbel ow t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have abst ai ned f r om deci di ngt he f eder al i ssues and i nst ead conf i ne thei r ar gument t o l ack ofsubj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on.

-13-


14/37

been f i l ed i n t hat cour t . BI WDecei ved, 132 F. 3d at 830. Ther e i s

no basi s f or di ver si t y j ur i sdi cti on i n t hi s case, so we l ook t o

whet her t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have had subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he f i r st case as one "ar i si ng under t he

Const i t ut i on, l aws, or t r eat i es of t he Uni t ed St at es. " 28 U. S. C.

1331.

The Chesspl ayer s' compl ai nt f i r st asser t ed FAPR " r ecei ves

publ i c f unds f r om t he Government of t he Commonweal t h of Puer t o

Ri co, cur r ent l y amount i ng t o $200 Thousand a year , f or t he publ i c

pur pose of car r yi ng out pr ogr ams t o quant i t at i vel y and

qual i t at i vel y or gani ze, f ur t her , and devel op chess i n Puer t o Ri co"

and Puer t o Ri co publ i c school s. Accor di ng t o t he Chesspl ayer s, t he

act i ons of FAPR boar d member s ( at t r i but abl e to t he or gani zat i on)

amount ed t o st ate act i on "because of t he f unds t hat t he

Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co cont r i but es annual l y t o t he FAPR. " The

compl ai nt went on t o al l ege:

23. I n addi t i on t o t he r i ght of t he pl ai nt i f f and t heot her members of FAPR t o vot e i n t he assembl y t hat i s t hesubj ect of t hi s r equest , t hei r r i ght t o at t end andpar t i ci pat e i n t he same was al so vi ol at ed; wi t houtconsi der i ng whet her or not t hey woul d be al l owed t o voteat t he r el evant t i me. The above vi ol at ed t he r i ght t of r eedom of speech and t o f r eedom of associ at i on of t heco- pl ai nt i f f s guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on of t heCommonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co and t he Const i t ut i on of t he

Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca. . . .37. The ser i es of ar gument s cont ai ned i n t hi s pet i t i on,

and speci al l y t he el ement s j ust descri bed, i l l egal l yi nj ur ed t he r i ght t o vot e, and t he r i ght s of f r eedom ofspeech and of f r ee associ at i on of t he above- ment i onedmembers of t he FAPR. These are r i ght s t hat ar e

-14-


15/37

guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on of t he Commonweal t h ofPuer t o Ri co and t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es ofAmer i ca . . . .

48. I f t he r emedy gr ant ed her ei n i s not gr ant ed,pl ai nt i f f s wi l l suf f er ser i ous and i r r epar abl e har m as

member s of t he FAPR, consi st i ng of t he f act t hat t heywi l l l ose t he r i ght of di r ect vot e and t he exer ci se oft hei r f r eedomof expr essi on and of associ at i on i n al l oft he mat t er s t o be consi der ed i n assembl i es of t he FAPR,i ncl udi ng deci si ons wi t h an i mpact on t he use of publ i cf unds t hat t he i nst i t ut i on r ecei ves as a di r ect al l ot mentf r om t he PR Legi sl at i ve Assembl y; and par t i cul ar l yi ncl udi ng t he r i ght t o vot e di r ect l y f or t he pr esi dentand t he ot her member s of t he Boar d of Di r ect ors of t heFAPR ever y t wo year s; and t he r i ght of f r eedom ofexpr essi on and f r eedom of associ at i on guar ant eed by t heConst i t ut i on of t he Commonweal t h of PR and t heConst i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca. ( emphasi sadded) .

These par agraphs pl ai nl y al l ege st at e act i on vi ol at i ons of speech

and associ at i on r i ght s guar ant eed by the Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed

St at es, cl ai ms "pr emi sed on t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. " R. I .

Fi sher men' s Al l i ance, 585 F. 3d at 48. The Chesspl ayer s "seek

r ecover y di r ect l y under t he Const i t ut i on" of t he Uni t ed St at es, andt hei r f eder al quest i on appear s on t he f ace of t hei r r equest . Bel l ,

327 U. S. at 681. Accor di ngl y, t he f eder al cour t s must ent er t ai n

t he sui t . See i d. ; see al so W. Si de Bel t R. R. Co. v. Pi t t sbur gh

Const r . Co. , 219 U. S. 92, 99 ( 1911) ( expl ai ni ng an asser t i on of a

r i ght under t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es necessar i l y

r ai ses a f eder al quest i on) .I t i s i mmat er i al t hat a cl ai mant i n r et r ospect vi ews her

f eder al cl ai ms as sur pl us, or af t er r emoval , moves t o st r i ke t he

f eder al cl ai ms. See Chi ng v. Mi t r e Cor p. , 921 F. 2d 11, 13 ( 1st

-15-


16/37

Ci r . 1990) . The pl ai nt i f f i s t he "mast er of t he cl ai m; he or she

may avoi d f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on by excl usi ve r el i ance on st at e l aw. "

Cat er pi l l ar , I nc. v. Wi l l i ams, 482 U. S. 386, 392 ( 1987) . Her e, t he

Chesspl ayer s, as mast er s of t hei r cl ai m, coul d have avoi ded f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on by r el yi ng excl usi vel y on Puer t o Ri co l aw. See i d. at

399. Thus, t he Chesspl ayer s' deci si on t o al l ege a vi ol at i on of

t hei r r i ght s under t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on opened t he door

f or FAPR t o r emove t he case t o f eder al cour t . See i d. ; see al so

Chi ng, 921 F. 2d at 14.

The Chesspl ayer s ar gue t he f i r st case di d not pose a

"subst ant i al " f eder al quest i on, and any ment i on of t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on was mer el y an al t er nat i ve l egal t heor y t o t hei r

st at e l aw cl ai ms. These ar gument s ar e unavai l i ng as t he

Chesspl ayer s i gnor e t he cruci al f act t hat t hei r f i r st r equest posed

a di r ect f eder al quest i on. An i nvest i gat i on i nt o whet her a cause

of act i on asser t s a "subst ant i al " f eder al quest i on i s r el evant onl y

f or st at e- l aw causes of act i on cont ai ni ng embedded f eder al

quest i ons. Templ et on, 352 F. 3d at 36 ( st at i ng t hat i f t he

compl ai nt does not al l ege a f eder al cause of act i on, t he i nqui r y i s

t hen i nt o "whet her some el ement of t he cl ai m depends on t he

r esol ut i on of a subst ant i al , di sput ed quest i on of f eder al l aw") .

The Chesspl ayer s' f i r st r equest al l eged vi ol at i ons of t hei r r i ght s

guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es, whi ch

const i t ut ed a "di r ect f eder al quest i on" as " a cl ai mpr emi sed on t he

-16-


17/37

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, " so we need not cont i nue our anal ysi s

t o t he "subst ant i al " quest i on quer y. R. I . Fi sher men' s Al l i ance,

585 F. 3d at 48; see al so Templ eton, 352 F. 3d at 36.

Next ci t i ng a handf ul of out - of - ci r cui t cases and one

Supr eme Cour t case, t he Chesspl ayer s ar gue f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on

wi l l not extend t o cases wher e t he f eder al quest i on appear s onl y i n

an al t er nat i ve ar gument f or r el i ef . But t hi s standar d i s appl i ed

t o cases t hat asser t causes of act i on cr eat ed by st at e l aw, not

di r ect f eder al quest i on cases. Unl i ke t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t he cases

t hey ci t e, t he Chesspl ayer s asser t ed an expl i ci t f eder al quest i on,

cl ear on t he f ace of t hei r f i r st compl ai nt , not a st at e- l aw cause

of act i on cont ai ni ng an embedded f eder al quest i on. 4 Whi l e t he

Chesspl ayer s ur ge us t o appl y t hese i nqui r i es t o t hei r f i r st case,

we cannot ; t he "subst ant i al " el ement and "al t er nat i ve t heor y"

anal yses ar e i nappl i cabl e i n t he pr esent case because the

Chesspl ayer s pl ed i n par t an expl i ci t f eder al quest i on under t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.

4 The cases ci t ed by t he Chesspl ayer s expl ai n t hat t he"al t er nat i ve l egal t heor y" i nqui r y i s appl i ed i n cases wher e st at el aw cr eat es t he cause of act i on. See Di xon v. Cobur g Dai r y, I nc. ,369 F. 3d 811 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) ; Hower y v. Al l st at e I ns. Co. , 243 F. 3d912 ( 5t h Ci r . 2001) ; Rai ns v. Cr i t er i on Sys. I nc. , 80 F. 3d 339 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1996) ; Mul cahey v. Col umbi a Or gani c Chems. Co. , 29 F. 3d 148( 4t h Ci r . 1994) . The Chesspl ayer s al so r el y on Chr i st i anson v.Col t I ndus. Oper at i ng Cor p. , 486 U. S. 800 ( 1988) . However , t heSupr eme Cour t i n Chr i st i anson r easoned t hat t he compl ai nt i t sel fal l eged no f eder al cl ai m, so t he i nqui r y cent er ed on whet her pat entl aw was a necessary el ement of one of t he wel l - pl eaded st ate- l awcl ai ms. I d. at 809.

-17-


18/37

Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t he di st r i ct cour t had subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he Chesspl ayer s' f i r st r equest f or

i nj unct i on, and t hus coul d exer ci se suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over

t he Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms ar i si ng f r om t he "same nucl eus of

oper at i ve f act s. " See BI W Decei ved, 132 F. 3d at 833.

2. The Second Case

As we expl ai ned, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

Chesspl ayer s' mot i on t o r emand t he second case and deemed r emoval

of i t f r omt he Puer t o Ri co cour t pr oper under t he Al l Wr i t s Act , 28

U. S. C. 1651( a) . The Chesspl ayer s chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second f i l ed act i on, ar gui ng

t hat t her e was no or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on under 1441 and t hat

r emoval of t he second case pur suant t o t he Al l Wr i t s Act was

i mpr oper . Al t hough FAPR sought r el i ef i n t he di st r i ct cour t under

bot h t he Al l Wr i t s and Ant i - I nj unct i on Act s, on appeal i t pl ays

around t he i ssue of whet her r emoval was pr oper under t he Al l Wr i t s

Act . I nst ead i t makes an argument based on an i nt er pr et at i on of

t he Ant i - I nj uncti on Act t hat ot her f eder al j ur i sdi cti ons have

adopt ed. FAPR cont ends t he Chesspl ayer s made an i l l egal move by

f i l i ng t he second case, i n an at t empt t o t hwar t t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s j ur i sdi ct i on over t he same cl ai ms pr esent ed i n f i r st case.

FAPR r easons t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y pr event ed t he Chesspl ayer s

f r om cont i nui ng i n Puer t o Ri co cour t , t her eby pr ot ect i ng i t s

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he f i r st case, as aut hor i zed by t he Ant i -

-18-


19/37

I nj unct i on Act . And so we exami ne whet her t he di st r i ct cour t had

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second case. We st ar t by consi der i ng t he

appr opr i at eness of t he Al l Wr i t s Act as a vehi cl e f or r emoval .

The Al l Wr i t s Act pr ovi des t hat t he "Supr eme Cour t and

al l cour t s est abl i shed by Act of Congr ess may i ssue al l wr i t s

necessar y or appr opr i at e i n ai d of t hei r r espect i ve j ur i sdi ct i ons

and agr eeabl e t o t he usages and pr i nci pl es of l aw. " 28 U. S. C.

1651( a) . I t i s a "r esi dual sour ce of aut hor i t y t o i ssue wr i t s

t hat ar e not ot her wi se cover ed by st at ut e. " Cl i nt on v. Gol dsmi t h,

526 U. S. 529, 537 ( 1999) ( quot i ng Car l i sl e v. Uni t ed St at es, 517

U. S. 416, 429 ( 1996) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . " [ W] her e

a st at ut e speci f i cal l y addr esses t he par t i cul ar i ssue at hand, i t

i s t hat aut hor i t y, and not t he Al l Wr i t s Act, t hat i s cont r ol l i ng. "

Syngent a Cr op Prot . , I nc. v. Henson, 537 U. S. 28, 32 ( 2002)

( quot i ng Pa. Bur eau of Cor r . v. U. S. Mar shal s Ser v. , 474 U. S. 34,

43 ( 1985) ) . The "r i ght of r emoval i s ent i r el y a cr eat ur e of

st atut e, " and t he Supr eme Cour t has made cl ear t hat a sui t

" ' commenced i n a st at e cour t must r emai n t here unt i l cause i s shown

f or i t s t r ansf er under some act of Congr ess. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Gr eat

N. Ry. Co. v. Al exander , 246 U. S. 276, 280 ( 1918) ) . The r emoval

st at ut e i s t he cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y f or r emoval , and t he Al l Wr i t s

Act cannot excuse "compl [ i ance] wi t h the st at ut or y r equi r ement s f or

r emoval . " I d. at 32- 33.

-19-


20/37

Appl yi ng t hese st andar ds t o t hi s case, i t i s cl ear t he

di st r i ct cour t l acked j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second case under t he

Al l Wr i t s Act . The di st r i ct cour t ' s or der denyi ng t he

Chesspl ayer s' mot i on t o r emand t he second case st at es, " [ s] ai d case

pr esent s i dent i cal f act s and cl ai ms t o t he [ f i r st ] one, and was

f i l ed subsequent t o t hi s cour t sust ai ni ng t he r emovabi l i t y of t he

[ f i r st ] case. Pl ai nt i f f s, hence, have at t empt ed t o t hwar t t hi s

cour t ' s r emoval j ur i sdi ct i on by f i l i ng t he second case. " The or der

goes on t o pr ocl ai m r emoval of t he second case "pr oper under t he

Al l - Wr i t s Act i n or der f or t hi s cour t t o sustai n i t s j ur i sdi ct i on. "

The di st r i ct cour t ' s or der i s conci se, but i t i s cl ear t he cour t

deemed r emoval pr oper "under t he Al l - Wr i t s Act " and not any ot her

st at ut or y pr ovi si on. The st at ut or y r equi r ement s f or r emoval may

not be avoi ded by rel yi ng upon t he Al l Wr i t s Act and accor di ngl y,

t he Act coul d not pr ovi de t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h j ur i sdi ct i on over

t he second case. See i d. at 33.

We al so f i nd no basi s f or j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o t he

r emoval st atut e, 28 U. S. C. 1441( b) . As we have expl ai ned above,

r emoval of a case f r om st at e cour t t o f eder al di st r i ct cour t under

1441 i s pr oper onl y i f t he di st r i ct cour t has or i gi nal subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he case. And so, t o r emove t he second

case pur suant t o 1441, i t must have posed, on i t s f ace, a di r ect

f eder al quest i on or a st at e- l aw cause of act i on t hat necessar i l y

-20-


21/37

t ur ned on some const r uct i on of f eder al l aw. See R. I . Fi sher men' s

Al l i ance, 585 F. 3d at 48; Templ et on, 352 F. 3d at 36.

Unl i ke t he f i r st compl ai nt , t he Chesspl ayer s' second

r equest di d not asser t cl ai ms " pr emi sed on the Uni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on. " R. I . Fi sher men' s Al l i ance, 585 F. 3d at 48. No

el ement s of t hei r st at e l aw cl ai ms r equi r ed "r esol ut i on of a

subst ant i al , di sput ed quest i on of f eder al l aw. " Templ et on, 352

F. 3d at 36. They expr essl y wai ved any f eder al cl ai ms i n t hei r

second r equest . As such, t he di st r i ct cour t was mi st aken i n i t s

asser t i on t hat t he second case made i dent i cal cl ai ms t o the f i r st .

And t her ef or e no basi s f or f eder al subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on

exi st ed, and t he or i gi nal j ur i sdi ct i on r equi r ed f or r emoval

pur suant t o 1441 was absent . 5 Consequent l y, we f i nd t he di st r i ct

cour t er r oneousl y concl uded i t had j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second

case and so we r emand i t t o t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h i nst r uct i ons t o

5 Because t he di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y deemed t he Al l Wr i t s

Act a pr oper vehi cl e f or r emoval of t he second case i t never r ul edon the mer i t s of FAPR' s al t er nat i ve ar gument t hat t he cour t wasnonet hel ess cor r ect i n pr event i ng t he second case f r om pr oceedi ngi n t he Commonweal t h cour t pur suant t o an except i on t o the Ant i -I nj unct i on Act . Gi ven t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances of t hi s case,we need not deci de- - and we expr ess no vi ew on- - t hat ar gument now.I nst ead, we l eave t he i ssue t o be l i t i gat ed on r emand i f necessar y.

-21-


22/37

r emand to t he Commonweal t h cour t . 6 We pr oceed t o our r evi ew of t he

l ast cl ai ms. 7

B. Summary Judgment

To r emi nd t he r eader , FAPR' s mot i on f or summar y j udgment

addr essed t he Chesspl ayer s' i ni t i al r equest f or a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on. I n t hei r opposi t i on t o FAPR' s mot i on, t he Chesspl ayer s

cl ar i f i ed t hei r posi t i on: t hey wer e now seeki ng a per manent , not a

pr el i mi nar y, i nj unct i on and they cl ai med ent i t l ement t o summar y

j udgment on t hat r equest ( t he ul t i mat e cl ai m i n t hei r consol i dat ed

cases) .

I n rul i ng on FAPR' s mot i on f or summary j udgment t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound no st at e act i on and di smi ssed al l of t he

Chesspl ayer s' cl ai ms pr emi sed on such a t heory under t he Uni t ed

St at es and Puer t o Ri co const i t ut i ons. The cour t al so di smi ssed al l

6 We do not accept j ur i sdi ct i on over cases t hat bel ong i nst at e cour t , as 28 U. S. C. 1447( c) r equi r es us t o remand t hembackt o st at e cour t i f , bef or e f i nal j udgment , i t appear s we i ncor r ect l yassumed j ur i sdi ct i on. See Fr anchi se Tax Bd. , 463 U. S. at 8.

7 The Chesspl ayer s al so ar gue t hat even i f t he di st r i ct cour tdi d have j ur i sdi ct i on over t he f i r st case and not t he second, t heexer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on was vi t i at ed by t he consol i dat i on of t hecases, whi ch pr event ed t hemf r omef f ect i vel y pur sui ng t hei r secondcase i n Puer t o Ri co st at e cour t , wher e they had al r eady obt ai ned a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on hear i ng. Thi s ar gument was not r ai sed bel owand i s t her ef or e wai ved. Mar t ex Far ms, S. E. v. U. S. Envt l . Pr ot .Agency, 559 F. 3d 29, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . We f ur t her not e t heChesspl ayer s do not r epr i se t hei r ar gument bel ow, seeki ngabst ent i on by t he f eder al cour t , so we al so consi der t hi s i ssuewai ved. Beat t y v. Mi chael Bus. Mach. Corp. , 172 F. 3d 117, 120 n. 2( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

-22-


23/37

cl ai ms based on Puer t o Ri co l aw. Ci t i ng Fi nn v. Bever l y Count r y

Cl ub, 683 N. E. 2d 1191, 1193 ( I l l . App. Ct . 1997) , 8 t he di st r i ct

cour t not ed t hat t he conduct of a vol unt ar y associ at i on i s subj ect

t o j udi ci al r evi ew onl y when i t f ai l s t o exer ci se power s consi st entwi t h i t s own r ul es. I t t hen concl uded t hat af t er r evi ewi ng t he

submi t t ed document s, t he const i t ut i on and byl aws of FAPR, none of

t he act i ons t aken by FAPR wer e done i n an ar bi t r ary or capr i ci ous

manner , and t hus j udi ci al i nt er vent i on was not war r ant ed.

On appeal , t he Chesspl ayer s do not chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s di smi ssal of t hei r const i t ut i onal cl ai ms pr emi sed on st at e

act i on. They f ocus onl y on t hei r Commonweal t h cl ai ms, argui ng t hat

FAPR' s act i ons pr ecedi ng and dur i ng t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng

vi ol at ed t he FAPR const i t ut i on and the Gener al Cor por at i ons Law of

Puer t o Ri co. They r epr i se t hei r ar gument t o t he di st r i ct cour t

t hat FAPR' s act i ons wer e cl ear l y ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous and

i nconsi st ent wi t h i t s own i nt er nal r ul es.

8 The di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat because FAPR ci t edI l l i noi s case l aw i n i t s summar y- j udgment mot i on and t heChesspl ayer s al so ref er enced t hi s same l aw i n t hei r r esponse, i twoul d l i kewi se appl y t hi s pr i nci pl e of j udi ci al noni nt er f er ence i n

maki ng i t s det er mi nat i ons. Puer t o Ri co and ot her l egal aut hor i t i esr ecogni ze t he same st andard. See Uni ver si dad del Tur abo v. L. A. I . ,126 D. P. R. 497 ( P. R. 1990) ; 6 Am. J ur . 2d Associ at i ons and Cl ubs 27. Loui si ana ( t he onl y ot her st at e t hat oper at es, l i ke Puer t oRi co, under a ci vi l code) al so uses t hi s st andar d. See Engl i sh v.Nat ' l Col l egi at e At hl et i c Ass' n, 439 So. 2d 1218, 1221- 22 ( La. Ct .App. 1983) .

-23-


24/37

1. Standard of Review

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summary j udgment

de novo. Shaf mast er v. Uni t ed St ates, 707 F. 3d 130, 135 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) . And we vi ew t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

Chesspl ayer s, as t he unsuccessf ul par t y, dr awi ng al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n t hei r f avor . See Ger al d v. Uni v. of P. R. , 707 F. 3d

7, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Summary j udgment i s appr opr i at e when t here

i s " no genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act , and t he movi ng par t y i s

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Kel l ey v. Cor r . Med.

Ser vs. , I nc. , 707 F. 3d 108, 115 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56( a) . That t he mat t er was r esol ved on cr oss mot i ons does not

change our s t andar d of r evi ew. Segr et s, I nc. v. Gi l l man Kni t wear

Co. , 207 F. 3d 56, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . "Cr oss mot i ons si mpl y

r equi r e us t o det er mi ne whet her ei t her of t he par t i es deserves

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw on f act s t hat ar e not di sput ed. "

Bar nes v. Fl eet Nat ' l Bank, N. A. , 370 F. 3d 164, 170 ( 1st Ci r . 2004)

( quot i ng Wi ght man v. Spr i ngf i el d Ter mi nal Ry. , 100 F. 3d 228, 230

( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We ar e not

bound by t he r easoni ng of t he di st r i ct cour t , but r at her , "may

af f i r mt he ent r y of summar y j udgment on any gr ound made mani f est by

t he r ecor d. " Har r i ngt on v. Aggr egat e I ndus. - Ne. Regi on, I nc. , 668

F. 3d 25, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng Houl t on Ci t i zens' Coal . v. Town

of Houl t on, 175 F. 3d 178, 184 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ) .

-24-


25/37

The i ssuance of a permanent i nj unct i on woul d be

appr opr i at e onl y i f t he di st r i ct cour t made f our f i ndi ngs: "( 1)

pl ai nt i f f s pr evai l on t he mer i t s; ( 2) pl ai nt i f f s woul d suf f er

i r r epar abl e i nj ur y i n t he absence of i nj unct i ve r el i ef " ( i . e. , ani nj ur y f or whi ch t her e i s no adequat e r emedy at l aw) ; " ( 3) t he har m

t o pl ai nt i f f s woul d out wei gh t he har m t he def endant woul d suf f er

f r om t he i mposi t i on of an i nj unct i on; and ( 4) t he publ i c i nt er est

woul d not be adver sel y af f ect ed by an i nj unct i on. " Asoci aci n de

Educaci n Pr i vada de P. R. , I nc. v. Gar c a- Padi l l a, 490 F. 3d 1, 8

( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

2. Relevant Law

Many j ur i sdi cti ons, i ncl udi ng Puer t o Ri co and I l l i noi s,

consi der t he const i t ut i on and byl aws of a not - f or - pr of i t

or gani zat i on t o const i t ut e a cont r act bet ween the or gani zat i on and

i t s member s. Di amond v. Uni t ed Food & Commer ci al Wor ker s Uni on

Local 881, 768 N. E. 2d 865, 870 ( I l l . App. Ct . 2002) ; Uni ver si dad

del Tur abo, 126 D. P. R. 497. These are a uni que t ype of cont r act

i n whi ch t he member , ei t her expr essl y or i mpl i ci t l y, "agr ees t o

abi de by al l r ul es and r egul at i ons adopt ed by t he or gani zat i on. "

Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d at 869 ( quot i ng Bl ackshi r e v. Nat ' l Ass' n f or

t he Advancement of Col ored Peopl e ( NAACP) , I nc. , 673 N. E. 2d 1059,

1061 ( I l l . App. Ct . 1996) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Lee

v. Snyder , 673 N. E. 2d 1136, 1139 ( I l l . App. Ct . 1996) ( quot i ng

Engel v. Wal sh, 101 N. E. 222, 223- 24 ( I l l . 1913) ) ; Uni ver si dad del

-25-


26/37

Turabo, 126 D. P. R. 497. The const i t ut i on or byl aws may pr ovi de

pr ocedur es t o r esol ve i ssues t hat ar i se wi t hi n t he or gani zat i on and

mi ght al so expr essl y endow aut hor i t y i n an of f i cer or di r ect or t o

i nt er pr et t he const i t ut i on or byl aws. See, e. g. , Fi nn, 683 N. E. 2dat 1193- 94; Edwards v. I nd. St ate Teacher s Ass' n, 749 N. E. 2d 1220,

1225 ( I nd. Ct . App. 2001) . Wher e t hi s sor t of aut hor i t y i s

gr ant ed, t he member s, t hr ough t hei r cont r act ual r el at i onshi p wi t h

t he or gani zat i on, agr ee t hat t he aut hor i zed of f i cer has t he power

t o i nt erpr et and the members may be bound by t hose i nt erpr etat i ons;

accor di ngl y, t he cour t gi ves def er ence t o t he aut hor i zed of f i cer ' s

i nt er pr et at i ons. Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d at 870; see Fi nn, 683 N. E. 2d

at 1194.

That i s not t o say t here i s no pl ace f or j udi ci al

i nt er vent i on. The or gani zat i on' s byl aws and const i t ut i on ar e a

cont r act , and t hus by vi r t ue, can be br eached. Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d

at 870. And " i f t he or gani zat i on pr ovi des no avenue f or i nt er nal

r evi ew or appeal , t hen j udi ci al i nt er vent i on i n an i nt er nal di sput e

may be appr opr i ate. " 6 Am. J ur . 2d Associ at i ons and Cl ubs 27;

see al so Engel , 101 N. E. at 224. "[ C] our t s gener al l y wi l l not

i nt er f er e wi t h t he i nt er nal af f ai r s of a vol unt ar y associ at i on

absent mi st ake, f r aud, col l usi on or ar bi t r ar i ness. " Por i s v. Lake

Hol i day Pr op. Owner s Ass' n, 983 N. E. 2d 993, 1001 ( I l l . 2013) ; Fi nn,

683 N. E. 2d at 1193. But , t he conduct of vol unt ar y associ at i ons

wi l l be subj ect t o j udi ci al r evi ew "when t hey f ai l t o exer ci se

-26-


27/37

power consi st ent l y wi t h t hei r own i nt er nal r ul es or when t hei r

conduct vi ol ates t he f undament al r i ght of a member t o a f ai r

hear i ng. " Fi nn, 683 N. E. 2d at 1193; see al so Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d

at 870; Her nndez v. Asoci aci n Hosp. del Maest r o, I nc. , 106 D. P. R.72 ( P. R. 1977) . 9

I n our de novo revi ew we must exami ne t he r ecord bef or e

us t o det er mi ne whet her t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y awarded summary

j udgment t o FAPR on t he Chesspl ayer s' r equest f or i nj unct i on. The

hear t of t he Chesspl ayer s' argument i s t hat FAPR acted i n an

arbi t r ary and capr i ci ous manner , based on unaut hor i zed or er r oneous

i nt er pr et at i ons of t he or gani zat i on' s const i t ut i on. They do not

det ai l t he f our speci f i c r equi r ement s f or per manent i nj unct i on, but

i nst ead f ocus t hei r ar gument as a chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

det er mi nat i on on t he mer i t s ( whi ch i s wher e t he di st r i ct cour t

ended i t s anal ysi s) . The Chesspl ayer s' appeal i s l i mi t ed t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment on t he f ol l owi ng i ssues:

excl usi on of cer t ai n member s f r omt he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng; pr oxy

vot i ng; f r eezi ng r enewal s and new member shi ps; and not i f i cat i on of

t he ext r aor di nary meet i ng onl y t hough e- mai l . We t ake each of t he

Chesspl ayer s' assi gned cl ai ms of er r or i n t ur n.

9 We not e that whi l e no one has pr esent ed t hi s ar gument her e,j udi ci al i nt er vent i on i nt o t he deal i ngs of a pr i vat e associ at i on i swar r ant ed when other due- pr ocess t ype vi ol at i ons have occur r ed.Fi nn, 683 N. E. 2d at 1193; Hernndez, 106 D. P. R. 72; Di amond, 768N. E. 2d at 870.

-27-


28/37

a. Exclusion of Existing Members

The Chesspl ayer s chal l enge FAPR' s excl usi on of cer t ai n

member s f r om par t i ci pat i ng i n the ext r aor di nar y meet i ng on the

gr ounds t hey wer e not "act i ve" member s. They speci f i cal l y t ake

i ssue wi t h f or mer pr esi dent Aeses' s def i ni t i on f or "act i ve"

member shi p, whi ch he enf orced pr i or t o and at t he ext r aor di nary

meet i ng. The def i ni t i on of "act i ve" i mposed by Aeses al l owed

members who wer e "up t o dat e wi t h t he payment of t hei r membershi p

f ees" and "al so par t i ci pat ed i n at l east one chess t our nament

sponsor ed by t he Feder at i on dur i ng t he i mmedi atel y pr ecedi ng t wel ve

mont hs" t o par t i ci pat e i n t he November 20 meet i ng. Ci t i ng Ar t i cl e

I I I of t he FAPR const i t ut i on, t he Chesspl ayer s asser t t hi s

def i ni t i on of "act i ve" member i s cont r ar y t o t he or gani zat i on' s

r ul es and r egul at i ons. FAPR mai nt ai ns t he excl usi on of cer t ai n

member s was based i n sound r easoni ng.

We l ook t o the FAPR const i t ut i onal pr ovi si ons r egar di ng

member vot i ng i n ext r aor di nar y meet i ngs. Ar t i cl e VI ( 2) of t he FAPR

const i t ut i on st at es t hat i n meet i ngs " whet her or di nar y or

ext r aor di nary, onl y act i ve member s whose annual dues are cur r ent

may par t i ci pat e. The same day of t he meet i ng - and bef ore i t

begi ns - a member may br i ng hi s member shi p cur r ent . " Ar t i cl e I I I

r equi r es FAPR member s t o "r emai n act i ve at t endi ng t he meet i ngs,

par t i ci pat i ng i n t he act i vi t i es, and payi ng t he assi gned dues. "

-28-


29/37

Ther e ar e no addi t i onal def i ni t i ons f or "act i ve" i n t he FAPR

const i t ut i on.

The const i t ut i on st at es t he "Boar d of Di r ect or s wi l l

gover n wi t h t he best cr i t er i a and wi l l be t he supr eme body, wi t ht he except i on of t he assembl y. " I t goes on t o gr ant t he Pr esi dent

power s t o "act as t he Feder at i on' s of f i ci al r epr esent at i ve and wi l l

make what ever deci si ons he/ she needs t o t ake when t he Boar d of

Di r ect or s or t he Assembl y i s not meet i ng. " But FAPR' s const i t ut i on

cont ai ns no pr ovi si on gr ant i ng t he Pr esi dent or any ot her Boar d

Member t he power t o i nt er pr et t he t er ms of t he const i t ut i on.

Accor di ngl y, t her e i s no aut hor i zed of f i cer whose i nt er pr et at i ons

r equi r e our def erence. See Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d at 870.

The def i ni t i on of "act i ve" empl oyed by Aeses dr aws f r om

t he FI DE ( t he I nt er nat i onal Chess Feder at i on) handbook,

speci f i cal l y t he secti on per t ai ni ng t o t he cri t er i a f or r anki ng t he

t op FI DE chess pl ayer s. Si x t i mes each year , t he Qual i f i cat i on

Commi ssi on of FI DE pr epar es a l i st of t he t op act i ve pl ayer s; a

pl ayer wi l l not be i ncl uded on t he l i st i f he or she i s i nacti ve.

The handbook descr i bes i nact i vi t y as when a pl ayer has pl ayed "no

r at ed games i n a one year per i od. " Aeses' s def i ni t i on of "act i ve"

combi ned t he FI DE handbook' s descr i pt i on of i nact i vi t y f or

-29-


30/37

i ncl usi on i n t he t op pl ayer s l i st wi t h Ar t i cl e I I I of t he FAPR

const i t ut i on. 10

But t he FAPR const i t ut i on does not r equi r e t he adopt i on

of t er ms i n t he FI DE handbook per t ai ni ng t o rat i ngs, nor does i tst at e t hat t erms as descr i bed by FI DE must or may be empl oyed by

FAPR. FI DE i s ment i oned onl y t wi ce i n t he FAPR const i t ut i on:

Ar t i cl e I I ( b) st at es FAPR wi l l "di vul ge t he game of chess" as

r egul at ed by t he FI DE, and Ar t i cl e I V( a) st at es FAPR "must be

af f i l i at ed wi t h t he F. I . D. E. " Ther e i s no speci f i c pr ovi si on i n

t he FAPR const i t ut i on f or t he i mpl ement at i on of FI DE t er mi nol ogy or

def i ni t i ons. Rat her , Ar t i cl e I I I def i nes "t he member s" of FAPR

wi t hout any r ef er ence t o t he FI DE. Thus, Aeses' s i ncor por at i on of

t he FI DE descr i pt i on of "i nacti vi t y, " t aken f r om t he cri t er i a f or

i ncl usi on i n t he t op r at ed pl ayer s l i st , t o t he FAPR const i t ut i onal

pr ovi si ons f or member par t i ci pat i on i n meet i ngs was not gr ounded i n

any FAPR const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on. Nor was hi s i nt er pr et i ve act i on

aut hor i zed by any power enunci ated i n t he const i t ut i on, so we owe

i t no def erence. See Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d at 870. As such, FAPR

"f ai l [ ed] t o exer ci se power consi st ent l y wi t h i t s own i nt er nal

r ul es, " and so i t s "conduct i s subj ect t o j udi ci al r evi ew. " Fi nn,

683 N. E. 2d at 1193.

10 Aeses' s message, sent t o t he gr oup e- mai l addr ess,j ust i f i ed t hi s def i ni t i on of act i ve, st at i ng t he FI DE pr ovi si onscompl ement t he r ul es and r egul at i ons of FAPR, and FI DE consi deredact i ve member s t hose who par t i ci pat ed i n act i vi t i es ( whi ch hecl ar i f i ed as " t our nament s, et c. ") i n t he pr evi ous t wel ve mont hs.

-30-


31/37

Appl yi ng de novo r evi ew, we concl ude t he Chesspl ayers

successf ul l y demonst r at ed t hi s act i on was ar bi t r ary and war r ant ed

j udi ci al i nt er vent i on.

b. Proxy Voting

The mi nut es f r omt he ext r aor di nary meet i ng cl ear l y st at e

t hat f i f t een of t he si xty- t hr ee member quor um vot ed by pr oxy. The

Chesspl ayer s asser t t he i ncl usi on of vot es by pr oxy was not

aut hor i zed by any FAPR pr ovi si on and was i nconsi st ent wi t h t he

Rul es of Par l i ament ar y Pr ocedur e adopt ed i n Ar t i cl e VI of i t s

const i t ut i on. FAPR cont ends i ncl usi on of vot es by pr oxy was

per mi ssi bl e.

We t ur n t o Ar t i cl e VI of t he FAPR const i t ut i on- - "About

t he Meet i ngs" - - whi ch st at es t hat meet i ngs " whet her or di nar y or

ext r aor di nar y . . . wi l l be gui ded by Rober t s Rul es of Or der . "

Rober t ' s Rul es st at e, "[ p] r oxy vot i ng i s not per mi t t ed i n or di nar y

del i ber at i ve assembl i es unl ess t he l aws of t he st at e i n whi ch t he

soci et y i s i ncor por at ed r equi r e i t , or t he char t er or by- l aws of

t he or gani zat i on pr ovi de f or i t . " RONR ( 11t h ed. ) , p. 428- 29.

I t i s cl ear t hat t he November 20 meet i ng was not an

or di nar y meet i ng, r at her i t was an ext r aor di nary meet i ng. And

Rober t ' s Rul es r egar di ng pr oxy vot i ng per t ai n speci f i cal l y t o

"or di nar y del i ber at i ve assembl i es" and ar e si l ent as t o

ext r aor di nar y meet i ngs or del i ber at i ve assembl i es. As t he

November 20 meet i ng was not an ordi nary meet i ng, t he l i mi t at i ons on

-31-


32/37

pr oxy vot i ng enunci at ed i n Rober t ' s Rul es cannot be appl i ed as

t hough i t wer e an or di nar y del i ber at i ve assembl y. Whi l e t he FAPR

const i t ut i on i s si l ent on t he speci f i c i ssue of pr oxy vot i ng, t he

i ncl usi on of pr oxy vot es at t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng does notappear t o be i nconsi st ent wi t h t he FAPR const i t ut i on, as i t

i ncor porat es Rober t ' s Rul es of Or der . The Chesspl ayer s have not

shown t hey pr evai l even on t he mer i t s of t hi s cl ai m, and we

concl ude t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n i t s gr ant of summar y

j udgment on t hi s i ssue.

c. Freezing Renewals

The Chesspl ayer s ar gue FAPR vi ol at ed i t s const i t ut i on

by pr ohi bi t i ng exi st i ng member s f r omr enewi ng thei r membershi ps up

t o or on t he day of t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng, t her eby pr event i ng

t hem f r om par t i ci pat i ng. FAPR pl ays ar ound t hi s ar gument , and

admi t s t he const i t ut i on pr ovi des f or payment of dues on t he day of

an assembl y. They cont end Ar t i cl e VI ( 2) ' s par t i ci pat i on pr ovi si on

may be l i mi t ed based on t he pr evi ousl y di scussed "act i ve"

membershi p r equi r ement as def i ned by f ormer pr esi dent Aeses.

We t ur n agai n t o Ar t i cl e VI ( 2) of t he FAPR const i t ut i on,

t he pr ovi si on per t ai ni ng to member vot i ng: "The same day of t he

meet i ng - and bef or e i t begi ns - a member may br i ng hi s member shi p

cur r ent . " I t i s cl ear f r omt he t ext of Ar t i cl e VI ( 2) t hat exi st i ng

members who wi shed t o br i ng t hei r membershi p cur r ent on November 20

wer e ent i t l ed t o do so. As we al r eady det er mi ned, Aeses' s

-32-


33/37

adopt i on of t he FI DE def i ni t i on of "act i ve" t o bar member

par t i ci pat i on i n meet i ngs was not suppor t ed by t he FAPR

const i t ut i on, and was an exer ci se of power i nconsi st ent wi t h t he

or gani zat i on' s i nt er nal r ul es. See Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d at 870. Webel i eve t hi s cl ai m has mer i t .

d. Barring New Members

Next , t he Chesspl ayer s al l ege FAPR vi ol ated i t s own

const i t ut i on by ref usi ng t o al l ow new member s t o j oi n t he

organi zat i on. FAPR count ers that admi ss i on as a member i s not

aut omat i c, as pr ovi ded i n t he const i t ut i on. The Chesspl ayer s poi nt

t o Ar t i cl es V and VI ( 1) of t he FAPR const i t ut i on t o suppor t t hei r

cl ai m t hat new member s coul d par t i ci pat e i n t he meet i ng i f t hey

j oi ned no l at er t han November 30. But t he Chesspl ayer s' ci t at i ons

ar e t o pr ovi si ons t hat per t ai n t o meet i ngs f or Boar d of Di r ect or s

el ect i ons, not ext r aor di nar y meet i ngs, t he t ype of meet i ng at i ssue

i n t hi s case. FAPR cor r ect l y r ef er s t o Ar t i cl e I I I ( b) , whi ch

st at es any per son wi t h knowl edge of chess or i nt er est i n l ear ni ng

may "appl y f or admi ssi on" and "acqui r e i t by maj or i t y deci si on" of

t he Boar d. The November 20 ext r aor di nary meet i ng was not f or t he

el ect i on of Boar d of Di r ect or s; t hus FAPR' s r ef usal t o al l ow new

members t o appl y and par t i ci pat e i n t he ext r aor di nary meet i ng was

not i nconsi st ent wi t h i t s i nt er nal r ul es. See Di amond, 768 N. E. 2d

at 870; Fi nn, 683 N. E. 2d at 1193. We f i nd no ar bi t r ar y or

capr i ci ous act i on.

-33-


34/37

e. Notification by E-mail

The l ast i ssue f or our r evi ew i s t he not i f i cat i on FAPR

pr ovi ded f or t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng. The Chesspl ayer s cl ai m

t hey never aut hor i zed FAPR t o pr ovi de t hem not i ce vi a e- mai l , and

so not i f i cat i on of t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng sent onl y by e- mai l

vi ol at ed Puer t o Ri co cor por at i ons l aw. We not e t hat t hi s i s t he

onl y ar gument , on appeal , f or whi ch t he Chesspl ayer s i nvoke a

speci f i c pr ovi si on of Puer t o Ri co l aw. So we appl y t he r el evant

pr ovi si on f r om Puer t o Ri co l aw f or t he anal ysi s of t hi s i ssue.

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 14, 3661 ( 2009) addr esses not i ce by

el ectr oni c t r ansmi ssi on, and subsecti on ( d) cl ar i f i es t hat t hi s

sect i on appl i es t o any cor por at i on not aut hor i zed t o i ssue capi t al

st ock ( f or whi ch al l r ef er ences t o st ockhol der s are deemed t o ref er

t o member s of t he cor por at i on) . Sect i on 3661( b) ( 2) s t at es t hat

not i ce shal l be deemed gi ven "by el ect r oni c mai l , when di r ect ed t o

an el ect r oni c mai l addr ess at whi ch t he st ockhol der has consent ed

t o r ecei ve not i ce. "

I t i s undi sput ed t hat FAPR' s f or mer admi ni st r at or Ber r os

sent t he not i f i cat i on f or t he ext r aor di nar y meet i ng onl y by e- mai l ,

not t o i ndi vi dual e- mai l addr esses, but r at her t o t he gr oup addr ess

"aj edr ezpr @yahoo. com. " FAPR st ops shor t of argui ng i t s members

consent ed to recei vi ng not i ce vi a e- mai l and i nst ead mer el y ci t es

-34-


35/37

pr i or i nst ances of not i f i cat i on f or meet i ngs sent by e- mai l . 11 I t

argues onl y t hat e- mai l cor r espondence was cust omary. However , we

f i nd not hi ng i n 3661 t o suppor t t he cont ent i on t hat pr i or r ecei pt

or cust omary pr act i ce const i t ut es consent . Because FAPR di d nothave t he consent of i t s member s t o i ssue e- mai l onl y not i f i cat i on,

we f i nd t he Chesspl ayer s have car r i ed t hei r bur den t o show success

on t he mer i t s, t hat t hi s was i ndeed ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous act i on

by FAPR.

As pr evi ousl y not ed, because t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded

i t s anal ysi s af t er f i ndi ng no mer i t t o any of t he Chesspl ayer s'

cl ai ms, i t became unnecessar y f or t he cour t t o di scuss any of t he

t hr ee r emai ni ng permanent i nj unct i on el ement s. Because we di sagr ee

i n par t wi t h t hat concl usi on, r emand i s necessary to al l ow t he

di st r i ct cour t t o det er mi ne i f t he Chesspl ayer s have sat i sf i ed t he

r emai ni ng el ement s f or t he i ssuance of a per manent i nj unct i on.

See McNei l Nut r i t i onal s, LLC v. Hear t l and Sweet ener s, LLC, 511 F. 3d

350, 357, 369 ( 3d Ci r . 2007) ( wher e t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

"deni ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef onl y on t he basi s t hat [ pl ai nt i f f ] di d

not demonst r at e a l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s, and

[ pl ai nt i f f ] r ai ses appel l at e ar gument s l i mi t ed t o t hat basi s, "

deci di ng onl y t he mer i t s i ssue and r emandi ng f or a consi der at i on of

t he r emai ni ng f act or s) ; I daho Wat er sheds Pr oj ect v. Hahn, 187 F. 3d

11 FAPR members were pr evi ousl y al er t ed t o ext r aor di narymeet i ngs hel d i n J ul y 2010 and Oct ober 2010 by e- mai l s sent t o t hi sgr oup addr ess.

-35-


36/37

1035, 1037 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) ( wher e t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

concl udi ng t hat t he appel l ant s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh a l i kel i hood of

success on t he mer i t s, r emandi ng f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi der

t he possi bi l i t y of i r r epar abl e i nj ur y and whet her t he bal ance ofhar dshi ps t i ps i n f avor of t he appel l ant s) ; Bl ack & Decker , I nc. v.

Hoover Ser v. Ct r . , 886 F. 2d 1285, 1296 ( Fed. Ci r . 1989) ( same) ;

Tat r o v. Texas, 625 F. 2d 557, 558 n. 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 1980) ( same) . I n

our r evi ew of t he r ecor d bef or e us, we not e t hat t he Chesspl ayer s,

i n opposi ng FAPR' s mot i on f or summary j udgment , di d f i l e a

st at ement of f act s ci t i ng t o af f i davi t s of i ndi vi dual Chesspl ayer s

whi ch di scuss how t he ar bi t r ary act i ons har med t hei r i nt er est and

whi ch ar guabl y addr ess t he r emai ni ng t hr ee f actors f or per manent

i nj uncti on. 12 As t o t hose cl ai ms we f i nd mer i t or i ous t he di st r i ct

cour t wi l l have t o det er mi ne i f t hi s r ecor d suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat

t he Chesspl ayer s suf f er ed i r r epar abl e i nj ur y, whet her t he har m t o

t hemout wei ghs t he har mt o t he def endant s f r omt he i mposi t i on of an

i nj unct i on, and whet her t he publ i c i nt er est woul d not be adver sel y

af f ect ed by the i ssuance of an i nj unct i on.

Conclusion

To r ecap, we f i nd t he di st r i ct cour t had f eder al subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi cti on over t he f i r st case. The di st r i ct cour t di d

12 For exampl e, one af f i davi t st at ed t he amendment s t o t he FAPRconst i t ut i on "vi ol at ed my most f undament al democr at i c r i ght s" yetBer r os and Aeses "went ahead and r e- st r uct ur ed t he organi zat i oni n such a way t hat i t i s pr act i cal l y i mpossi bl e f or an out si derl i ke me t o gai n an el ect i ve posi t i on i n a f ai r el ect i on. "

-36-


37/37

not have subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he second case, and we

r emand i t t o t he di st r i ct cour t wi t h i nst r uct i ons t o r emand i t t o

t he Commonweal t h cour t wher e i t was or i gi nal l y f i l ed. Ut i l i zi ng

our de novo r evi ew, we concl ude t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l ygrant ed summar y j udgment t o FAPR i n par t . However , t he

Chesspl ayer s showed success on t he mer i t s f or t hr ee of t hei r

appeal ed cl ai ms, and we r emand t hose cl ai ms t o t he di st r i ct cour t

f or f ur t her consi der at i on i n accor dance wi t h t hi s cour t ' s deci si on.

Each par t y shal l bear i t s own cost s.

Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federacion de Ajedrez de PR, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of Ortiz-Bonilla v. Federacion de Ajedrez de PR, 1st Cir. (2013)