Cathy Jackson-Platts v. General Electric Capital Corporation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17580
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Estate obtained a $110 million final judgment in Florida state court against Trans Healthcare and Trans Management for negligence related to Juanita Jackson’s death; those defendants did not appeal.
- The Estate filed a supplementary proceeding under Fla. Stat. § 56.29(6) to implead GE Capital and Rubin Schron, alleging fraudulent transfers and conspiracy to strip Trans Health assets to avoid satisfying the judgment.
- GE timely removed the first supplementary proceeding to federal district court on diversity grounds; the Estate moved to remand, arguing § 56.29(6) proceedings are ancillary (not removable "civil actions").
- A second, separate supplementary proceeding naming different defendants was filed and remanded by a different federal judge; the district court then sua sponte remanded the first removed action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed: it held the § 56.29(6) proceeding was an independent, removable civil action (new parties, new claims, different facts/law), and the district court abused its discretion in abstaining under Colorado River.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Fla. § 56.29(6) supplementary proceeding is a removable "civil action" under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 | § 56.29(6) is ancillary to the underlying judgment and not an independent civil action | § 56.29(6) impleader of third parties asserts new liabilities and substantive claims (UFTA-based), so it is an independent civil action removable under § 1441 | Held: § 56.29(6) proceeding is an independent, removable civil action (new parties, new legal theories, distinct factual matrix) |
| Whether the district court properly abstained under Colorado River after removal | Remand was proper because state proceedings were parallel and abstention appropriate | Colorado River abstention inappropriate: forums not sufficiently exceptional; many factors disfavor abstention | Held: District court abused its discretion; Colorado River abstention unjustified and remand reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (establishes narrow Colorado River abstention doctrine)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (abstention-based remand orders appealable)
- Butler v. Polk, 592 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir.) (independent actions when new party litigates new liability)
- Webb v. Zurich Ins. Co., 200 F.3d 759 (11th Cir.) (garnishment actions treated as independent suits removable under § 1441)
- Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co. v. Pagés Morales, 368 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir.) (Colorado River abstention is rare; factors to weigh)
- TranSouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir.) (lists the six Colorado River factors)
- Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714 (7th Cir.) (§ 1441 allows removal of independent, non-ancillary suits)
- Ohio v. Doe, 433 F.3d 502 (6th Cir.) ("civil action" requires suit separate from ancillary proceedings)
- Armistead v. C&M Transp., Inc., 49 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.) (supplementary proceedings are not independently removable in that context)
- Freeman v. First Union Nat'l, 329 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.) (federal courts regularly adjudicate claims under Florida's UFTA)