Robles v. Holy See
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-02106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robles v. Holy See, Judge Caproni struck the jury demand and paused the jurisdiction decision while Robles decides whether to continue federally.
Thomas Alberto Robles must decide whether to continue the action in federal court and must do so without the jury demand that the court struck.
What happened
In Robles v. Holy See (State of Vatican City The Vatican), the court had ordered Thomas Alberto Robles to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it. Robles argued that federal law gave the court jurisdiction.
The court explained that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act gives federal courts jurisdiction over nonjury civil actions against a foreign state. Because Robles’s complaint demanded a jury trial, the court struck that demand.
Judge Valerie Caproni required Robles to notify the court by May 22, 2020, whether he intended to continue the case in federal court. The court held its further decision on the jurisdiction question until it received that notice.
The detailed version
- Robles v. Holy See · No. 1:20-cv-02106
- Valerie Caproni
- May 15, 2020
Background
The court had previously ordered Thomas Alberto Robles to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Robles submitted a response. The Society of the Catholic Apostolate responded by letter.
Robles asserted jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The complaint demanded a jury trial.
Court’s analysis
The court quoted the FSIA’s provision giving federal district courts original jurisdiction over a nonjury civil action against a foreign state. It also stated that district courts have jurisdiction over actions against foreign states only for nonjury trials.
Ruling
The court ordered that Robles’s jury demand be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a)(2). It did not yet decide whether the case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, Judge Valerie Caproni required Robles to notify the court by May 22, 2020, whether he intended to continue pursuing the action in federal court, and held further decision on the order to show cause in abeyance until receiving that notice.
Effect of the order
The order removed the jury demand and required a response from Robles. It did not dismiss the case or finally resolve the jurisdiction question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.