Premier Motorcar Gallery, Inc. v. Onazina Washington

238 So. 3d 947
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 29, 2018
Docket17-5299
StatusPublished

This text of 238 So. 3d 947 (Premier Motorcar Gallery, Inc. v. Onazina Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Premier Motorcar Gallery, Inc. v. Onazina Washington, 238 So. 3d 947 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-5299 _____________________________

PREMIER MOTORCAR GALLERY, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

ONAZINA WASHINGTON,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition–Original Jurisdiction.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rick Scott, in his official capacity etc. v. Gail Francati
214 So. 3d 742 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Maseda v. Honda Motor Co.
861 F.2d 1248 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 So. 3d 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/premier-motorcar-gallery-inc-v-onazina-washington-fladistctapp-2018.