RUTAS AEREAS NACIONALES, S.A., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, APPELLANT,
v.
CAULEY & MARTIN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ACCESSORIES SERVICE CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL ENGINE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND FLORIDA AIRCRAFT RADIO & MARINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RIDDLE AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., INTERVENORS, APPELLEES
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 Venezuelan airline corporation challenged a Florida state court's order appointing a receiver after the case had been removed to federal court. The appellate court held that the state court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in a removed case that remained pending in federal court and had not been remanded.
The state circuit court was without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in the removed case. Once a case is removed to federal court and remains there, the state court loses jurisdiction over it, and cannot exercise judicial authority over matters in that cause.
“After removal of the state court receivership suit to the United States district court, and while the suit remained there and had not been remanded to the state court, the latter court was without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in said suit on motion of a party thereto.”
States the core holding that a state court loses jurisdiction once a case is removed to federal court and remains there pending.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCreditors sued Rutas Aereas Nacionales, S.A., a Venezuelan corporation, in Dade County circuit court, which appointed a receiver. The case was then re…
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 State Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal by the defendant below is from an order of the circuit court in Dade County appointing a receiver. Prior to the entry of the order in question the suit had been removed to a United States district court, and it had not been remanded. The question presented is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to make the challenged order. We hold that the circuit court was without jurisdiction, and reverse.
The suit was brought by creditors against the defendant Rutas Aereas Nacionales, S. A., a Venezuelan corporation, in the circuit court in Dade County. That court appointed a receiver. Thereafter the case was removed to the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on the ground of diversity of citizenship, as provided for *169in 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1441, 1446. An order was entered in the cause in the federal court approving a plan of arrangement proposed by the defendant corporation, returning the assets of the defendant to its custody and control, and relieving the receiver of responsibility other than to account but retaining him in office for that purpose. The receiver died prior to his discharge. Additional creditors including Riddle Airlines, Inc. intervened in the cause in the federal court. Riddle Airlines, Inc. and other parties moved the federal court in said cause for the appointment of a receiver to succeed the one who had died. The federal court entered an order denying that application for receiver. On the following day the intervenor Riddle Airlines, Inc. moved the circuit court in Dade County in the original styled cause for appointment of a successor receiver. The defendant sought prohibition in this court which we denied.1 The circuit judge heard the matter and appointed a receiver in said cause, and the defendant took this appeal therefrom.
We need not consider the merits of the appointment, because the determinative question is one of jurisdiction. Ap-pellees contend the circuit court’s order was proper because it only supplied a substitute for the deceased receiver, whose duties were limited, and because otherwise the moving parties would be without remedy following the federal court’s refusal to appoint. These contentions lack merit. Jurisdiction of the circuit court could not depend upon the objects for which the receiver was appointed or the breadth of his duties. The parties who moved for and were denied the appointment of such receiver in the federal court were not without remedy. Such an order is appealable. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a) (2).
After removal of the state court receivership suit to the United States district court, and while the suit remained there and had not been remanded to the state court, the latter court was without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in said suit on motion of a party thereto. See e. g., Lowe v. Jacobs, 5 Cir.1957, 243 F.2d 432; Hopson v. North American Insurance Company, 71 Idaho 461, 233 P.2d 799, 25 A.L.R.2d 1040. See also, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1446, 1447.
For the reasons stated the order appealed from is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Preston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 627 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…he case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d); see General Electric Credit Corp. v. Smith, 484 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Weiser v. Bierbrouwerij, B.V., 430 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla.3d DCA 1983);1 Rutas Aereas Nacionales, S.A v. Cauley & Martin, Inc., 160 So. 2d 168, 169 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1964); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.3d 670, 183 Cal.Rptr. 330, 332-33 & n. 5 (1982). See generally 1A James W. Moore & Brett A. Ringle, Moore’s Federal Practice para. 0.16…
-
Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Milburn Smith, 484 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…nded.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(e). Under this amendment, removal to federal court divests the state court of jurisdiction to proceed. Maidman v. Jomar Hotel Corp., 384 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Rutas Aereas Nacionales, S.A. v. Cauley & Martin, Inc., 160 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 166 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1964). The state court’s jurisdiction is suspended from the moment of removal until the case is remanded to it by the federal court. Laguna Village, Inc. v. Laborers International Union, Local 652, 35…
-
Sherwood M. Weiser v. Grolsche Bierbrouwerij, 430 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…We reverse with directions to reinstate the cause. Once a matter is removed to the federal court, a state trial court and its judge have no jurisdiction over the matter and cannot dismiss it. Rutas Aereas Nacionales, S.A. v. Cauley & Martin, Inc., 160 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Medrano v. Texas, 580 F. 2d 803 (5th Cir.1978); Hop-son v. North American Insurance Company, 71 Idaho 461, 233 P. 2d 799 (1951); People v. Martin-Trigona, 28 Ill.App.3d 605, 328 N.E. 2d 362 (1975); 28 U.S.C., Sec. 1446(e). Reve…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. William H. Reynolds as Comptroller of the State of Fla. v. White, 40 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1898)
- State v. Freeland, 103 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1931)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert H. Anderson v. Parks, 94 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1927)
- Octavia Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1957)