PREMIER MOTORCAR GALLERY, INC.
v.
ONAZINA WASHINGTON
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.
Premier Motorcar Gallery filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over an underlying matter. While the prohibition petition was pending, Premier Motorcar removed the case to federal court, thereby divesting the state circuit court of jurisdiction. The appellate court dismissed the prohibition petition as moot because removal had already accomplished the relief sought.
The petition for prohibition is dismissed as moot because Premier Motorcar's removal to federal court had already achieved the relief sought—depriving the circuit court of jurisdiction. If the case is later remanded to state court and the trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction, Premier Motorcar may file a new prohibition petition at that time.
[1] A petition for prohibition seeking to deprive a state court of jurisdiction becomes moot when the petitioner removes the underlying case to federal court, thereby achievi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePremier Motorcar Gallery filed a petition for prohibition against the circuit court in an underlying action. Before the prohibition petition could be …
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 Petition For Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
March 29, 2018 PER CURIAM. Premier Motorcar Gallery, Inc., filed a petition for prohibition, asking us to prohibit the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction in the underlying matter. Later, while this original action remained pending, Premier Motorcar removed the underlying action to federal court, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed. See Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F. 2d 1248, 1254–55 (11th Cir.1988) (“[A]fter removal, the jurisdiction of the state court absolutely ceases and the state court has a duty not to proceed any further in the case.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (“[T]he State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”).
Premier Motorcar now asks us to stay or abate this proceeding, waiting and starting again “only in the event the action is later remanded” back to state court. But because Premier Motorcar acknowledges that its removal to federal court has already achieved what it asked us to do—deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction to proceed—we dismiss the petition as moot. If the case later returns to state court, and if the trial court later acts in excess of its jurisdiction, Premier Motorcar can later file another prohibition petition. See Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742, 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (prohibition is appropriate when circuit court attempts to act without jurisdiction). DISMISSED. WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ David P. Healy of Dudley, Sellers, Healy & Heath, PL, Tallahassee, for Petitioner. David H. Abrams, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Quintanilla (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…th Cir. 2005)); see also People v. Gocmen, 115 N.E. 3d 153, 159 (Ill. 2018) (holding the arresting officer permitted to opine as to whether motorist was under the influence of drugs for purposes of determining probable cause); State v. Rothenberger, 885 N.W. 2d 23, 34 (Neb. 2016) (declining to adopt a bright line rule requiring a full drug recognition expert protocol be administered as a prerequisite to a finding of probable cause and holding that “when determining whether probable cause exists to arrest a su…
Authorities Cited
- Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota. William Robert Bernard, Jr., 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016)
- Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)