aid, and the protection of acquired personal rights. The Treaty shall also recognize the sovereign capacity of Puerto Rico to enter into covenants and other international treaties.” 8 . In addition to seeking removal of the above-captioned case, defendants have also requested that this Court consolidate this action with a parallel federal action currently pending in this district, Civil Case No. 98-203 l(CCC), which they allege has similar questions of law and fact as the instant case. However, the Court need not address the issue of the propriety of consolidation because it is well-settled that an action which is improvidently removed may not be consolidated with another over which the Court does have jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Brandt Construction Co., 826 F.2d 643, 647 (<HOLDING>); McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574
holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case holding that district court had supplemental jurisdiction over claims challenging administrative decision once case was properly removed based on original jurisdiction arising from constitutional claims holding that it is not holding the antiinjunction act  does not bar an injunction of a state court proceeding which purports to exercise jurisdiction over a removed case holding that a district court does not acquire jurisdiction over an improvidently removed case by consolidating it with one properly before it