of the issue of attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs Pedro Zaragoza Delgado and Ema Georgina Zaragoza-Aldana wish to be reimbursed for their attorney’s fees incurred as a result of Defendants’ removal of this case, they shall FILE within ten days a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to and in compliance with Local Court Rule CV-7(j). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions before the Court, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. 1 . In this case, Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of Texas; thus, there is no diversity jurisdiction. 2 . The Court notes that there is a circuit split regarding whether the federal common law of foreign relations is an appropriate basis for federal question jurisdiction. Compare Torres, 113 F.3d at 543 (<HOLDING>) with Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d
holding that federal question jurisdiction existed where plaintiffs suit although rooted in statelaw claims implicated foreign policy concerns holding state immune from suit involving a federal question holding that no substantial question of federal law was required to be answered to determine the plaintiffs statelaw legal malpractice negligence and breach of contract claims holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court