## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 37 80

__ __ __ __ __ _
Mi ch ael D. May o; Sh arro n M ay o; * Ro y Fred eri ck W al te rs ; Ki p Du dl ey * Ri ch ard s; Davi d M . Ske en s; J. * Mi ch ael Vaug ha n; Garret t M ark * Hod es ; Walt ers , Ben de r, * St ro hb eh n & Vaug ha n, P.C
., *

* App el la nt s, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. GMAC Mo rtg ag e; UBS Rea l Es ta te * Secu rit ie s, In c.; M as tr S pe ci al iz ed * [UNPUBLISHED] Loa n Tru st 20 07 -0 1; Deut sc he Ban k * Nati on al Trus t Co m

pa ny; Res id en ti al * Fu nd in g C om

pa ny, *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 , 20 12 Fi le d: March 9, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

In th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al
, pl ai nt iff Mi ch ael Mayo, hi s wife Sh arro n Mayo (a
fo rm er pl ai nt iff

), an d hi s co un se l ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r en joi ni ng th em fro mpa rti ci pa ti ng in a st at e-co ur t cl as s act io n ag ai ns t GMAC Mo rtg ag e, LLC (GMACM )

an d Res id en ti al Fu nd in g Co m pa ny (RFC ). In 20 08
, th e Mayos fil ed a pu ta ti ve cl as s
act io n in st at e co ur t, whi ch was rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t ba se d on di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on un de r th e Cl as s Acti on Fai rn e s s A c t

. Tha t act io n rem ai ns pe nd in g in
fed eral di st ric t co ur t. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t di sm is se d al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t GMACM an d
RFC in 20 11
, bu t la te r rev ers ed th at de ci si on an d rei ns ta te d th em as de fen da nt s. Pri or
to GMACM ’s a n d R F C ’s rei ns ta te m en t, Mi ch ael Mayo an d ot he rs fil ed an act io n
ag ai ns t th em in s t a t e c o u r t, ba se d in pa rt on cl ai m s th at ha d be en di sm is se d in th e fed eral act io n. GMACM an d RFC co ns en te d to su it in st at e co u r t , a n d ha ve no t

so ug ht to rem ov e th e st at e act io n to fed eral co ur t. In th e st at e act io n, th e pa rti es are

se ek in g ap pr ov al of a se tt le m en t ag reem en t. In th e pe nd i n g fed eral la wsu it
, de fen da nt s UBS Rea l Est at e Secu rit i es , In c., an d Deu ts ch e Ban k Nati on al Trus t Co m pa ny as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to en joi n Mi ch ael Mayo’s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e st at e
act io n. Th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d an in jun ct io n was ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed by 28
U.S.C. § 14 46 (d ), whi ch pr ov id es th at , aft er rem ov al
, “ th e St at e co ur t sh al l pro ceed

no fur th er u nl es s an d u nt il th e cas e is rem an de d.”

The Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act pr ov id es th at “ [a] co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es m ay no t
gr an t an in

jun ct io n to st ay pr oc eed in gs in a St at e co ur t ex cep t as ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed
b y A c t o f Co ng res s, or whe re ne ces sa ry in ai d of it s juri sd ic ti on , or to pr ot e c t o r effe ct ua te it s ju dg m en ts .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3. Th e th ree e xc ep ti on s are n arro w, and

an y d o u b t s as to th e pr op rie ty of an in jun ct io n “ sh ou ld be res ol ve d in fav or of

pe rm it ti n g th e st at e co ur ts to pr oc eed .” See Sm it h v. Bayer Co rp ., 13 1 S. Ct

. 23 68
, 23 75 (2 01 1) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s
de t e r mi na ti on th at se ct io n 22 83 pe rm it s th e in jun ct io n, an d we rev ie w th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on whe th er to gr an t in jun ct iv e rel ie f fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. See In re SDDS, In c., 97 F.3d 10 30 , 10 37 , 10 40 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e in

jun ct io n was im

pr op er. Alt ho ug h se ct io n 14 46 di rect s

a “ st at e co ur t to st ay th e cas e th at was act ua ll y rem ov ed
, it ha s b een in te rp ret ed to

- 2

-au th or iz e co ur ts to en joi n la te r fi l e d s t a t e cas es th at were fil ed fo r th e pu rp os e of

su bv ert in g fe de ral rem ov al juri sd ic ti on .” See Kan . P ub . Em ps . R et . S y s. v. Rei m er & Kog er Ass oc s., In c., 77 F.3 d 10 63
, 10 69 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). The di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, di d no t fin d th at Mayo in it ia t ed th e la te r-fi le d st at e act io n to su bv ert th e

c o u rt’s rem ov al juri sd ic ti on , an d we co nc lu de th at su ch a fin di ng wou ld no t h a v e be en wa r ran te d: th e st at e-co ur t pr oc eed in g in vo lv es ad di ti on al pa rti es an d cl ai m s,

an d GMACM an d RFC ha ve el ect ed to su bm it to st at e-co ur t juri sd ic ti on , whi c h is

co nc ur ren t, rat he r th an rem ov e th e st at e a c t i o n t o f ed eral co ur t. Cf. id

. at 10 70 -7 1 (aff irming in jun ct io n o f la te r-fi le d st at e-co ur t act io n; up ho ld in g di st ric t co ur t’s
f i nd in gs th at ne w su it was at te m pt to su bv ert rem ov al of earl ie r cas e, th at n e w s u i t

was su bs ta nt ia ll y id en ti cal to ol d, an d th at pl ai nt iff ha d tri ed to carv e up on e cas e in to

se pa rat e cas es , wh ic h le d to su bv ers i on of rig ht to rem ov e). W e al so di sa gr ee wit h

t h e d i s t ric t co ur t’s reas on in g th at an in jun ct io n co ul d is su e on th e gr ou nd th at a

se tt le men t in th e st at e act io n m ig ht pr ev en t ad jud ic at io n of Mayo’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t GMACM an d RFC in th e fed eral act io n. See Nat’l Bas ke tb al l Ass ’n v. Mi nn

. Pro f’l
Bas ke tb al l, Ltd

. P’Shi p, 56 F.3 d 86 6, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (co nc ern th at st at e co ur t mi g h t p ro no un ce jud gm en t fir st an d le av e di st ric t co ur t wit h li tt le to de ci de w a s

co ns eq ue nc e of na ti on ’s du al syste m of in de pe nd en t st at e an d fed eral co ur ts , no t le ga l jus ti fic at io n fo r st ay in g s ta te -co ur t p ro ceed in gs ).

The in jun ct io n i s v acat ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 3

-