Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-4676,84-4676 |
| Citation | 770 F.2d 545 |
| Parties | Gary DUKES and Thomas E. Barber, d/b/a D & B Dozer Service, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Cothren & Pittman, Robert G. Germany, Joseph E. Roberts, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, David W. Dogan, III, Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, POLITZ and JONES, Circuit Judges.
Gary Dukes and Thomas Barber appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of South Carolina Insurance Company. Dukes and Barber contend that a state court judgment was res judicata on South Carolina's summary judgment motion. They also contend that a genuine issue of material fact remained, making summary judgment inappropriate. Rejecting both contentions, we affirm.
Dukes and Barber, doing business as D & B Dozer Service, purchased indemnity insurance for a 1971 tractor from South Carolina Insurance Company. The tractor was later destroyed by fire. Dukes and Barber sought to collect the proceeds of the policy, but South Carolina denied their claim. Dukes and Barber then filed suit against South Carolina in a Mississippi state court. They sought recovery for damage to the tractor, plus punitive damages for South Carolina's bad faith handling of the claim.
South Carolina filed a removal petition and bond with the United States District Court clerk on November 5, 1982. South Carolina notified Dukes and Barber of the removal, and maintains that a copy of the removal petition was sent to the state court clerk. For some reason, however, the state court record did not reflect the receipt of a copy of the petition. South Carolina, unaware of this defect in the removal procedure, answered the complaint in the federal court, and both parties participated in pretrial discovery in the federal forum.
On July 6, 1983, South Carolina served a request for admissions on Dukes and Barber. On January 5, 1984, Dukes and Barber still had not responded to the request. South Carolina moved for summary judgment, regarding its requests as admitted. On January 30, Dukes and Barber filed a response to the request for admissions. South Carolina moved to strike the response as untimely. On July 20, 1984, Dukes and Barber took a default judgment in the state court without notice to counsel for South Carolina. The summary judgment record does not disclose whether in securing the default judgment counsel for Dukes and Barber advised the state court that the case had been removed to federal court and that they had been proceeding before that court for more than one year. On August 16, the federal district court, 590 F.Supp. 1166, which was not advised of the state court default, granted South Carolina's motion to strike and motion for summary judgment. Dukes and Barber then notified the federal court and counsel for South Carolina of the state court judgment, and filed a motion to reconsider in the federal court. The federal court denied the motion, and Dukes and Barber appealed.
Dukes and Barber contend that South Carolina's failure to file a copy of the removal petition with the state court clerk resulted in the state court retaining concurrent jurisdiction with the federal court. Because counsel for South Carolina did not take steps to assure that they had complied with the letter of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(e), Dukes and Barber argue that the state court retained authority to issue a default judgment which the federal court is bound to recognize. We disagree.
Dukes and Barber correctly state that the procedure for removal of an action to a federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446, and that section 1446(e) requires the defendant to give prompt written notice of the removal to all adverse parties and to file a copy of the petition with the state court clerk. The summary judgment record does not establish that such a copy was ever actually filed on the docket of the state court. The failure of South Carolina to ensure that the clerk of the state court had actually received a copy of the petition for filing is partially responsible for the present jurisdictional confusion. If Dukes and Barber had objected, South Carolina could have corrected its defective removal by filing the petition with the state clerk or by explaining its failure to that court.
In Medrano v. Texas, 580 F.2d 803 (5th Cir.1978), we held that the state court retains jurisdiction until the state court receives actual or constructive notice of the removal. Constructive notice in this case was accomplished by notice to counsel for Dukes and Barber and by their subsequent participation in the state court action. In the absence of proof that they failed in their duty as officers of the court to advise the state court of the removal before seeking a default judgment in that forum, we presume that they properly discharged their duty to the state court and advised the court of the removal and of their participation in the conduct of the federal litigation during the previous year. Cf. United States ex rel. Echevarria v. Silberglitt, 441 F.2d 225, 227 (2d Cir.1971) ().
Failure to file a copy of the removal petition with the state court clerk is a procedural defect, and does not defeat the federal court's jurisdiction. Adair Pipeline Co. v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 203 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.Tex.1962), aff'd, 325 F.2d 206 (5th Cir.1963); see also Covington v. Indemnity Insurance Co., 251 F.2d 930, 933 (5th Cir.1958) (citing Mackay v. Uinta Development Co., 229 U.S. 173, 33 S.Ct. 638, 57 L.Ed. 1138 (1913)), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 921, 78 S.Ct. 1362, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1958); Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3736, at 548 (1985). In addition to supplying constructive notice to the state court, Dukes and Barber could and did waive any objection to the procedural defect in South Carolina's removal by failing to make a timely objection in the federal forum. See Mackay, 229 U.S. at 176, 33 S.Ct. at 639; Petty v. Ideco, 761 F.2d 1146, 1148 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985); see also Wright, Miller & Cooper, Secs. 3721, 3736, at 227-28, 548-49. This knowing failure to object to the removal prevents the assertion by Dukes and Barber of the technical defect in the removal process as a matter which deprived the federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the action.
Dukes and Barber received notice of the removal and participated in the federal court litigation. They responded to interrogatories and attended a status conference before the federal magistrate. They took a default judgment in the state court while simultaneously participating in the federal forum. They failed to notify the federal court of South Carolina's removal defect until nearly two years after the removal, and did not inform the federal court of the state court judgment until after the federal court had reached a judgment on the merits.
Although we decline to presume that Dukes and Barber attempted to mislead the state and federal courts to gain unfair advantage over South Carolina by proceeding surreptitiously in the state court, the record is clear that South Carolina did rely on the participation of Dukes and Barber in the federal forum, and had no reason to know that the state court litigation continued to exist. By failing to make a timely objection to the removal, Dukes and Barber waived their right, if any they ever had, to insist that the federal court was bound to defer to the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Akhtar
...1042 (5th Cir.1997). Any matter admitted under Rule 36(a) is conclusively established. See FED.R.CIV.P. 36(b); Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir.1985). Thus, deemed admissions can serve as the basis for summary judgment. See Western Horizontal Drilling, Inc. v. Jo......
-
Johnson v. Citibank, N.A.
...601 n. 5 (4th Cir.1976) (citing with approval United States ex rel. Echevarria, 441 F.2d at 227 ). But see, e.g., Dukes v. S.C. Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545, 547 (5th Cir.1985) (finding removal valid on assumption that, where plaintiffs' counsel was aware of removal, they complied with their obli......
-
Williamson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
...arbitrary or clearly unreasonable." Mayo v. Tri-Bell Industries, Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir.1986); Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545, 548-49 (5th Cir.1985); Perel v. Vanderford, 547 F.2d 278, 280 (5th Cir.1977). Yet if discovery could uncover one or more substantial fac......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...a general principle of contract law which the special nature of insurance contracts does not alter. ” (emphasis added)), aff'd, 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.1985). “The omission or concealment of material facts can constitute a misrepresentation, just as can a positive, direct assertion.” Davidson......
-
Introduction to Evidentiary Foundations
...you can avoid the necessity of laying the foundation for the admission of the photograph at trial. Cases Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1985). Where plaintiffs failed to respond to a defendant’s request for admissions until more §130 INTRODUCTION 1-16 than six mont......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...you can avoid the necessity of laying the foundation for the admission of the photograph at trial. Cases Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1985). Where plainti൵s failed to respond to a defendant’s request for admissions until more than six months after service, the di......
-
Tactics
...you can avoid the necessity of laying the foundation for the admission of the photograph at trial. Cases Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1985). Where plaintiffs failed to respond to a defendant’s request for admissions until more than six months after service, the d......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...you can avoid the necessity of laying the foundation for the admission of the photograph at trial. Cases Dukes v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 770 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1985). Where plainti൵s failed to respond to a defendant’s request for admissions until more than six months after service, the di......