JAMES N. WEATHERLY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A state court improperly entered a dismissal judgment after a case had been removed to federal court. The appellate court held that once a case is properly removed to federal court, the state court loses jurisdiction and any subsequent state court orders are void.
Once a case is properly removed to federal court, the state court loses jurisdiction and must yield to federal court authority. Any subsequent state court proceedings or judgments entered after removal are void. The state court had no discretion to enter the dismissal judgment in this case.
[1] A state court loses jurisdiction over a civil action upon the filing of a notice of removal with the state court, and may only resume jurisdiction if the federal court re…
[2] An appeal from a state court order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the underlying action was removed to federal court and has not been remanded.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If, on the other hand, on the face of the petition for removal and the record the cause appeared to be removable, and a sufficient bond was filed, where that was requisite, it was the duty of the state court to recognize the removal and proceed no further but to yield jurisdiction to the federal court, the state court having no discretion in the matter; subsequent proceedings therein, or a judgment entered, or a subsequent order made or refused by it, except the order of removal, was void and it should not resume consideration of the cause unless and until it should finally be decided in the courts of the United States that the cause was not removable.”
Establishes the governing legal principle that state courts must yield jurisdiction upon proper removal and that subsequent state court actions are void.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Weatherly filed a cause of action that was removed to Federal Court. Despite the removal, the lower state court entered a 'Motion Notice and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Removal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Appellant argues that since the cause of action in question was removed to Federal Court, the lower State Court had no jurisdiction to enter its order of dismissal, and even if it did, it erred in entering a dismissal which acts as an adjudication on the merits. Apparently the “Motion Notice and Judgment of Dismissal” was filed as a Final Judgment and it states:
Plaintiff, James M. Weatherly, shall take nothing by this action and Defendant, North American Van Lines, Inc. shall go hence without day.
The judgment of dismissal appears to act as an adjudication on the merits making all matters in this case res judicata. At the very least, this language was inappropriate since dismissals for lack of prosecution are to be “without prejudice” for purposes of res judicata. Bair v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 387 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), Murphy White Dairy, Inc. v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The Federal removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1441 does not expressly prohibit (nor does it address) such an action. However, 76 C.J.S. Removal of Causes § 221 at 1088 states:
If, on the other hand, on the face of the petition for removal and the record the cause appeared to be removable, and a sufficient bond was filed, where that was requisite, it was the duty of the state court to recognize the removal and proceed no further but to yield jurisdiction to the federal court, the state court having no discretion in the matter; subsequent proceedings therein, or a judgment entered, or a subsequent order made or refused by it, except the order of removal, was void and it should not resume consideration of the cause unless and until it should finally be decided in the courts of the United States that the cause was not removable.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for the entry of a stay.
REVERSE and REMAND.
GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bair v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 387 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Murphy White Dairy, Inc. v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)