## Facts

- The Arango family bought a package tour arranged through travel entities that included round-trip air transportation between Miami and Santo Domingo on Compañia Dominicana de Aviación (Dominicana) and hotel accommodations in Santo Domingo.
- Upon arrival in the Dominican Republic, immigration officials refused the family entry and ordered their immediate departure.
- The family was compelled to return via Dominicana, was routed through San Juan and Port-au-Prince, and ultimately returned to Miami several days later after arranging travel themselves.
- The family sued four defendants in Florida state court—Guzman Travel Advisors Corp., Trailways Travel & Tourism International Corp., Sheraton Hotels & Inns, and Dominicana—asserting tort and breach of contract theories and alleging joint responsibility tied to marketing and formation of the tour.

## Issues

1. Whether removal by a foreign state or its instrumentality under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) removes only the claims against the foreign-state defendant or removes the entire civil action, including claims against non-sovereign defendants.
2. If the entire action was removed, whether a district court order dismissing only the foreign-state defendant is a “final decision” appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when claims against other defendants remain and there is no Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification.

## Decision

- The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) removal by Dominicana removed the entire action, including claims against the non-foreign-state defendants.
- Because all parties were before the federal court after removal, the order dismissing only Dominicana did not resolve all parties’ rights and liabilities.
- Absent Rule 54(b) certification, the dismissal order was not a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) by a foreign state or its instrumentality removes “the action” as a whole, not merely the claims against the removing foreign-state defendant.
- In multi-party litigation, an order disposing of fewer than all parties’ claims is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 unless the district court enters a Rule 54(b) judgment with an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment.
- Appellate courts may not reach merits issues (including asserted defenses such as foreign sovereign immunity) when jurisdiction is lacking due to nonfinality.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit construed § 1441(d) to remove the full case to federal court once a foreign-state instrumentality removed, and it dismissed the appeal because the district court’s dismissal of only that defendant was interlocutory without Rule 54(b) certification.


Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp., 621 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980)