Rapha Ministries v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

RAPHA MINISTRIES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:26-cv-00806-MTS ) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company removed this action from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri. Doc. [1]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Attorney “Samuel Henderson on behalf of Plaintiff Rapha Ministries” filed a Notice with this Court stating that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. [9]. To this Notice, he attached a “Motion Opposing Removal,” Doc. [9-2], and informed this Court that he “intends to argue his motion before the State Court because the State Court still retains jurisdiction.” Doc. [9]. Attorney Henderson’s legal contention that the State court “still retains jurisdiction” over this matter is flat-out wrong. Once a removing party files “a copy of the notice [of removal] with the clerk of [the] State court,” the “State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). See also Doc. [8-1] (Defendant’s state-court-file-stamped Notice of Filing Notice of Removal). Since the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has recognized that a “state court ‘los[es] all jurisdiction over the case’” after removal. See Roman Cath. Archdiocese of San Juan, P.R. v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 63–64 (2020) (quoting Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 493 (1881)). Any subsequent proceedings in the state court prior to remand are “absolutely void.” Jd.; accord Beery v. Chicago, RI. & P.R. Co., 64 Mo. 533, 534-35 (1877) (“[T]he State Court could proceed no further with the cause, and any attempt in that direction was coram non judice.”). “If issues of fact arise upon the averments of the petition for removal, the jurisdiction to try them is in the federal court, and not in the state court.” Boatmen’s Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen, 135 F. 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1905) Goined by Van Devanter, J.). With this well-settled legal principle in mind, the Court will construe Attorney Henderson’s “Notice to the Federal Court Regarding Having No Diversity Jurisdiction,” Doc. [9], as Plaintiff's Motion for Remand and deny the Motion without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file a proper Motion in this Court that complies with the Court’s Local Rules and applies the correct legal standard to the issue at hand. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(A) (requiring a moving party to file “with each motion a memorandum in support of the motion, including any relevant argument and citations to any authorities on which the party relies”’); 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (setting forth the applicable procedure following removal from state court); see also Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87-89 (2014) (explaining the pleading and evidentiary standards for establishing the amount in controversy on removal). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, Doc. [9], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 28th day of May 2026. □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-