IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH BLEVINS, et al., )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0120-CG-B

SEYDI VAKKAS AKSUT, et al.,

Defendants

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Defendants’ motion to vacate state 

court filing and to enjoin further actions in state court (Doc. 118), Plaintiffs’ 

opposition thereto and motion to strike Defendants’ motion (Doc. 120), and 

Defendants’ reply (Doc. 121). For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that 

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is due to be denied and that Defendants’ motion should 

be granted in part, to the extent that the Court will enjoin the current Plaintiffs and 

their counsel from proceeding in state court.

This case was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of Dallas County, 

Alabama, on March 6, 2015, and discovery is currently stayed pending a ruling on 

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. (Docs. 1, 95). On May 11, 2015, a First Amended 

Complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama under the same 

heading and case number as the original complaint. (Doc. 118-1). The First 

Amended Complaint adds numerous new plaintiffs and incorporates by reference 

“paragraphs 1-418 of the original Complaint, as if fully set-out herein.” (Doc. 118-1, 

p. 19).

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 124 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Defendants ask this Court to vacate Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and 

to enjoin Plaintiffs from taking further actions in state court. Defendants point out 

that it is well-settled law that upon the filing of a notice of removal, the jurisdiction 

of the state court ceases and jurisdiction in federal district court immediately 

attaches. Defendants argue that this court can vacate the First Amended Complaint 

under the All Writs Act, which provides that a federal court “may issue all writs 

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the 

usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, 

contend that the All Writs Act does not apply because the First Amended Complaint 

is not brought by the removed defendants, but by new defendants whose claims 

have not been removed. Plaintiffs contend that the new plaintiffs are not before 

this Court. Plaintiffs also assert that the All Writs Act cannot be used to enjoin 

state court in personam proceedings.

While Plaintiffs are correct that the new plaintiffs are free to file their claims 

in the court of their choosing, they cannot piggy back onto the current action and 

then claim they are not subject to its proceedings. “When a removal petition is filed 

and proper notice is given, the entire case is transferred to the federal district 

court.” Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248, 1251 (11th Cir. 1988) 

(citations omitted). This entire case was removed to the jurisdiction of this Court 

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 124 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 5
3

and any new plaintiffs must either file a separate action or seek to join the action 

currently before this Court. The removal statute expressly provides that upon 

removal “the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). “Any subsequent proceedings in state court on the 

case are void ab initio.” Maseda, 861 F.2d at 1254-55 (citation omitted). “Several 

court decisions also have recognized the power of federal courts to enjoin state 

courts from proceeding in a removed case.” Id. at 1255 (citing Adair Pipeline Co. v. 

Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 325 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1963); E.D. Systems Corp. v. 

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 674 F.2d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 1982); Hyde Park 

Partners, L.P. v. Connolly, 839 F.2d 837, 842 (1st Cir.1988); Bean v. Clark, 226

Miss. 892, 85 So.2d 588 (1956)). However, it is not clear that taking the drastic step 

of enjoining the state court is necessary in this situation. The state court Case 

Action Summary shows that the last action in the case was the e-filing of the 

Amended Complaint on May 11, 2015. (Doc. 121-1). There has been no contention 

that the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, has proceeded with the case in 

any manner and this Court presumes that the state court will comply with federal 

law. See Grondahl-Mascari v. Senterfitt, 2008 WL 494676, *4 (N.D. Fla. 2008) 

(finding an injunction unnecessary and noting that “[t]he state courts of Florida will 

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 124 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 5
4

undoubtedly comply with federal law and, indeed, prior experience confirms that 

presumption.”1). 

The new plaintiffs listed in the First Amended Complaint are not currently 

before this Court and this Court will not issue any injunction against those 

individuals. However, their filing in state court is clearly void ab initio and, as 

argued by Defendants, “was analogous to filing [it] in [the plaintiffs’] kitchen 

drawer.” Smith Pierre v. Fidelity Nat. Inem. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 3924178, *4 (S.D. 

Fla. Sept. 7, 2011) (citation and internal quotations omitted). This Court does not 

recognize the First Amended Complaint as validly filed and Defendants are not 

required to respond to it. 

This Court does find it appropriate to enjoin the current Plaintiffs and their

counsel from attempting to proceed with any part of this case in the Circuit Court of 

Dallas County, Alabama. As stated above, if Plaintiffs’ counsel have clients that 

wish to file new claims, they are free to file them where they deem appropriate but,

until and unless this case is remanded, they must do so in a separate action or seek 

 

1 While this Court’s recent experience with the state and county courts of Alabama 

may differ somewhat from that of the federal courts of Florida at the time of the 

Senterfitt decision, this Court has faith that the Circuit Court of Dallas County, 

Alabama will follow federal law here. In this case, there is no indication that the 

state court would have any objection to this Court assuming complete jurisdiction 

over this case until and unless the case is remanded.

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 124 Filed 07/07/15 Page 4 of 5
5

joinder in this action with this Court.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Defendants’ motion to vacate state court 

filing and to enjoin further actions in state court (Doc. 118), is GRANTED in part

to the extent that the current Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel are hereby 

ENJOINED, until and unless this case is remanded, from attempting to proceed in 

the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, with any claims in Case No. 15-cv900040, except that Plaintiffs’ counsel is ORDERED to file notice of this Order in 

the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Case No. 15-cv-900040. The motion is 

DENIED in part, to the extent that this Court declines to enter an injunction 

against the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama.

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ motion (Doc. 120), is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2015. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00120-CG-B Document 124 Filed 07/07/15 Page 5 of 5