Haas v. Haas et al
Filing
14
OPINION and ORDER - Therefore, this Court does indeed have the authority to dissolve the Common Pleas Court's injunction. AND NOW, THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Rule to Show Cause, which is dated December 24, 2014 and was submitted to this Court as CM/ECF Docket number 3 is DISSOLVED.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 5/7/15. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LYNN HAAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
3:1S·CV·00063
(JUDGE MARIANI)
JONATHAN HAAS and
MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
The above-captioned case was removed to this federal district court 'from the
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on January 9, 2015. The Complaint
challenges the entitlement of Defendant Jonathan Haas to the proceeds of Plaintiffs late
husband's life insurance policy. (See generallyCompl., Doc. 1-1.) It seeks an injunction
preventing Defendant insurer Minnesota Life from releasing the proceeds of the Decedent's
policy, directing Minnesota Life to pay the proceeds of the policy into Court pending final
resolution of the matter, and enjoining Jonathan Haas from various forms of involvement in
the Decedent's estate.
On February 6, 2015, this Court held atelephone status conference upon request of
counsel. Counsel represented during the conference that settlement had been reached
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Court therefore issued an Order dismissing
the case without prejudice to the right to reinstate the action if settlement were not
consummated. (See Order for Dismissal, Feb. 6,2015, Doc. 10, at 1.)
However, counsel also stated during the status conference that a pre-removal Order
issued by the Court of Common Pleas remains in effect, and that this Order enjoins
Defendant Minnesota Life Insurance from releasing the proceeds of the life insurance policy
at issue in this case. The Common Pleas Court's Order is dated December 24,2014 and
enters "a Rule ... upon Defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not
be entered." (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Rule to Show Cause, Dec. 24,
2014, Doc. 3, at 2.) It sets a hearing date for January 20,2015 and provides that in the
meantime, U[p)ending further Order of Court, Minnesota Life is enjoined from releasing the
proceeds of Decedent James Haas' life insurance policy." (ld.) Because the hearing was
scheduled for a time after the case was removed to federal court, we assume that it never
occurred. Nonetheless, the injunction against release of the proceeds remains in place.
The parties represented that, in order to fully effectuate settlement, the Order must
be dissolved. But before this Court took such action unilaterally, it requested that counsel
submit authority on the issue of whether the post-removal federal court can dissolve a pre
removal state court's order, or whether it is necessary to remand the matter to state court
for dissolution. Plaintiff responded by submitting the case Bryfog/e v. Carvel Corp., 666 F.
Supp. 730 (E.D. Pa. 1987). Defendants have demonstrated no opinion on the matter.
2
As noted in Bryfogle, 666 F. Supp. at 735,28 U.S.C. § 1450 provides that in an
action removed from a state court to a federal district court, "[a]II injunctions, orders, and
other proceedings had in such action prior to its removal shall remain in full force and effect
until dissolved or modified by the district court." Section 1450 "recogniz[es] the district
court's authority to dissolve or modify injunctions, orders, and all other proceedings had in
state court prior to removal." Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters &Auto Truck
Drivers Local No. 70 ofAlameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 437, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 1123,39 L. Ed.
2d 435 (1974).
Therefore, this Court does indeed have the authority to dissolve the Common Pleas
Court's injunction. AND NOW, THIS 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Rule to Show Cause, which is
dated December 24, 2014 and was submitted to this Court as CM/ECF Docket number 3 is
DISSOLVED.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?