USCA1 Opinion

January 30, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 94-2059
DR. NELSON ABREU GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
ANGEL LUIS MEDINA ARANA, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo on brief for appellants.
_____________________

Manuel A. Segarra-Vazquez on brief for appellees.

_________________________
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Defendants-appellees move for summary

affirmance of the district court's dismissal of this suit for

lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

that jurisdiction

The complaint alleges

exists under 28 U.S.C.

"arises under" federal law.

1331, because it

The sole claim pleaded, however,

is a cause of action in tort for legal malpractice.

It
plaintiffs'
initiated by
appeal from

appears
counsel

in

that

defendants

an

unsuccessful

plaintiffs as chapter 13

once

adversary

debtors.

the bankruptcy court judgment

served

as

action

Plaintiffs'

was dismissed for

failure
attorney

to

timely

perfect

misfeasance

made

appellate processing

district

court

$600,000 in damages
malpractice.
unopposed

that

Allegations

time

to

explain

of
the

the bankruptcy

this separate lawsuit, begun in

months

later,

allegedly sustained as

The

is

In

some

district

motion to

malpractice

at

appeal.

delay, were referred to

court for investigation.

the

the

dismiss

court

claim

seek

a result of

the

granted

because the

state-created

plaintiffs

defendants'

tort of
and

attorney

there

is

no

diversity of citizenship between the parties.

Without explaining their
plaintiffs here insist

that their

federal law because the legal

lack of opposition below,

complaint "arises

under"

malpractice is alleged to have

occurred in the context of a federal proceeding

and included

a disregard of a federally-created procedural rule.

There is
however.

See
___

no general

federal common law

O'Melveny & Myers

_________________

v. FDIC, 114
____

of torts,

S. Ct. 2048,

2052 (1994); Erie R.R.

_________

v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,

________

78 (1938).

In the absence of a specific statute creating a federal cause

of

action,

the

traditional

malpractice is rooted in
114 S. Ct. at 2055.
power to

right

state law.

to

relief

legal

See O'Melveny & Myers,

___ __________________

While federal courts

regulate the conduct of

for

have the inherent

attorneys appearing before

them, plaintiffs' assumption that violation of a federal rule

or

ethical norm

automatically

creates a

federal cause

of

action for damages is inconsistent with the provisions of the

Rules Enabling Act.
shall

not

right").
on

See 28 U.S.C.
___

"abridge,

modify

or

2075

(bankruptcy rules

enlarge

any

substantive

This is not an extraordinary case in which reliance

state tort

conflict with

law as the

rule of

a substantial

O'Melveny & Myers,

___________________

114

decision might

federal policy.

S.

Ct.

See generally
_____________

at 2053-55;

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson,

_____________________
________

create a

Merrell Dow
____________

478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986).

Any federal question in this suit would likely emerge only as

an intermediate step in

resolving the pivotal tort questions

of duty, breach, causation and damages.

Plaintiffs
authority of
before

us

jurisdiction

do

28 U.S.C.
reveals
under

no
that

not predicate
1334,
reason

jurisdiction

and the
to

statute.

abbreviated record

require
No

on the

an exercise

substantial

of

issue

-3-

appearing, appellees' motion is

granted, and the judgment of

_______

the district court dismissing the complaint without prejudice

is affirmed.
________

-4-