Opinion ID: 864396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in dismissing

Text: RAYNER’S LAWSUIT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ¶5. The circuit court properly denied Rayner’s application for default judgment and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction over this case once it was removed to federal district court. ¶6. The effect of removing an action to federal court is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), which provides in part: Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the 2 notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (emphasis added). Thus, once removed to federal court, a case remains within the jurisdiction of the federal courts until an order is entered remanding the matter back to the state court. ¶7. Previously, this Court considered this same issue and stated: This Court held in Bean v. Clark, 226 Miss. 892, 85 So.2d 588 (1956) that, when a case is removed to a Federal District Court under 28 U.S.C.A. §1446, the state court shall not proceed after defendants give written notice of removal to all adverse parties and file a copy of the petition of removal with the clerk of such state court. We also held that any action taken in the state court thereafter before remand, had no force or effect. Miss. Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So. 2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1976) (footnote omitted). See also Moore v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co., 717 F. Supp. 1193, 1195 (S.D. Miss. 1989). ¶8. In the instant case, the district court denied Rayner’s motion to remand. Rayner v. Raytheon, Co., Civ. A. No. 1:00cv547GR (S.D. Miss. 2001). Without a remand by the federal court, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to proceed further. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). ¶9. We modify the decision of the circuit court only to the extent that dismissal was with prejudice. Generally, a dismissal with prejudice connotes an adjudication on the merits. See generally Foundry Sys. & Supply, Inc. v. Indus. Dev. Corp., 185 S.E.2d 94, 95 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971) (The phrase with prejudice” in [the context of when an action is dismissed with prejudice] means an adjudication on the merits and final disposition, barring the right to bring or maintain an action on the same claim or cause. Pulley v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R., 122 Kan. 269, 251 P. 1100 (1927). Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 555). Thus, lacking jurisdiction, the circuit court was without authority to address the merits. The circuit court should have simply dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction. 3 ¶10. Because this case is in the federal courts, Rayner’s only remedy in this case was to appeal the order of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As a matter of law, until there is a remand order, the state court cannot proceed in a case that has been removed to federal court.