Law 75/21 appeals in the First Circuit’s docket

I’ve identified so far three appeals dealing with Law 75/21 claims in the First Circuit’s active docket. Two appeals are from denials of preliminary injunctions and the other is a direct appeal and mandamus from a remand order. Caribe Chem Distributors v. Southern Agricultural Insecticides, No. 21-1918, appeal from remand order, 2021 WL 5406563 (D.P.R. 2021), raises an underlying Law 75 claim for an alleged breach of an exclusive agreement to distribute insecticides. The appeal raises issues of first impression in the First Circuit whether a remand order based on the so-called voluntary/involuntary rule is appealable. If so, whether the Law 75 principal-defendant can remove the case to federal court after the state court's notice of a final partial judgment granting a motion to dismiss the diversity-defeating Puerto Rico codefendants that created complete diversity for removal. Most federal courts hold that a defendant can only remove in those circumstances if the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action against the non-diverse parties because an involuntary dismissal (such as an order granting a motion to dismiss) is appealable (and, in theory, if the losing party wins, the state court could destroy federal jurisdiction after removal). There is a more recent line of out of circuit federal cases going in the opposite direction finding removal jurisdiction. The undersigned represents the principal as lead counsel in that case. The other two appeals raise more directly Law 75/21 issues involving distributor appeals from orders denying preliminary injunctions. Both are reported in this Blog. B. Fernández v. Anheuser Bush, 2023 WL 2776304 (D.P.R. 2023), appeal pend’g, No. 23-1293, (1st. Cir. 2023) and José Santiago, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 2022 WL 2155023 (D.P.R. 2022), No. 22-1491 (1st Cir. 2022) (argued).