Alpine View Co Ltd v. Atlas Copco AB , 205 F.3d 208 ( 1999 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20879
Summary Calendar
ALPINE VIEW COMPANY LIMITED; BJORN HANSEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ATLAS COPCO A.B.; ATLAS COPCO ROBBINS;
ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS INCORPORATED;
AND ATLAS COPCO COMPTEC INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
August 20, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
During the pendency of this appeal, our Court sitting en banc
decided Marathon Oil Co. v. A.G. Ruhrgas, No. 96-20361, 1998 WL
329842 (5th Cir. June 22, 1998) (en banc). The procedural
circumstances involved in this appeal are very similar to those
involved in Marathon Oil and our decision herein is controlled by
that en banc decision.
Accordingly, we vacate the following orders entered in the
court below:
a. Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of July
31, 1996 by the magistrate judge which recommended (i) that
defendant Atlas Copco AB’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction (docket entry 22) be granted; (ii) that defendant
Atlas Copco Robbins’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction (docket entry 26) be granted; and (iii) that
plaintiffs’ motion to remand this case (docket entry 16) be denied
as moot.
b. The Order of the district court entered on October 1,
1996 adopting the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
entered under date of July 31, 1996 as described in the foregoing
subparagraph;
c. The Memorandum and Recommendation entered under date of
August 1, 1996 by the magistrate judge which recommended that the
motions of defendants Atlas Copco Comptec, Inc. and Atlas Copco
Compressors, Inc. to dismiss for forum non conveniens (docket
entries 4 and 9) be granted; and
d. The Order of the district court entered under date of
October 1, 1996 adopting the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation entered under date of August 1, 1996 as described in
the foregoing subparagraph.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be remanded to the
2
district court for a determination as to whether the federal
district court has subject matter jurisdiction of the cause of
action as removed from the state court.
3