Court Opinion

ID: 9849195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:35:57.145034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:06.097914
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Judge.
I dissent from the ruling in the 2nd Division of the majority opinion as well as the judgment of reversal.
Diplomatic relations with the Republic of Cuba have been severed. No intervention urging the immunity of the Republic of Cuba was filed in the trial court by or on behalf of the State Department and in the absence of such intervention I believe that the trial court was correct in refusing to adjudicate that it *854was without jurisdiction of the case. As pointed out by the majority, the question of such immunity is exclusively for the State Department and could not be raised either by the Republic of Cuba or by a third nation. handling the affairs of the Republic of Cuba in this country. See the Gul Djemal, 296 F. 563. The absence of a proper suggestion by the State Department can and must be construed as an absence of recognition of the sovereign immunity contended for. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.