Feysal Ayati-Ghaffari and Irana Hagnazari v. Hazawiperi Jackie Gumbodete and Jose Anaya
05-14-01019-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 9, 2015Background
- Appellants Feysal Ayati‑Ghaffari and Irana Hagnazari filed in this Court a May 14, 2015 "Notice to the Fifth Judicial District Court... of Removal to Federal Court," stating they had filed removal papers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and asking the state court to proceed no further pending remand.
- Attached to that notice was a purported "Notice of Removal" bearing a federal caption and a partially handwritten case number, but it was not file‑stamped by any federal court.
- This Court ordered appellants (June 25, 2015) to file, by July 2, 2015, a copy of the federal filing bearing the federal court file‑stamp; appellants did not comply.
- Federal removal procedure (28 U.S.C. § 1446) requires filing a notice of removal in the proper federal district court and promptly giving written notice to adverse parties and filing a copy with the state court, which effects removal and suspends state‑court proceedings unless remanded.
- The Court examined only whether removal was procedurally effectuated (not the merits), noting that where the record shows proper removal procedures were followed, state‑court jurisdiction lapses as a matter of law pending remand.
- Because appellants did not file a file‑stamped copy of the federal removal notice in this Court (or otherwise show removal was properly filed in federal court), the Court ordered that the appeal proceed here until a federal file‑stamped removal notice is produced or proper removal procedures otherwise shown.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court proceedings were suspended by a federal removal the appellants asserted they filed | Appellants: they filed removal papers in federal court and notified the state appellate court; state court should halt further proceedings pending remand | Appellees: removal not shown because no file‑stamped federal notice was produced; state courts may proceed | Court: Removal not shown on record; appeal will proceed until a file‑stamped federal removal notice (or other proof of proper federal filing) is filed |
| Whether a notice to the state appellate court alone effects removal | Appellants: their notice to this Court suffices to trigger the stay contemplated by §1446(d) | Appellees: the §1446 mechanics require filing in federal court and filing a copy with the state court; mere notice without a filed federal copy is insufficient | Court: Must have a filed copy from federal court; notice alone without a federal file‑stamp does not establish removal |
| Whether this Court should decide whether removal was substantively proper | Appellants: implied federal filing removes question from state court jurisdiction | Appellees: procedural showing of removal not satisfied so state court jurisdiction remains | Court: Does not decide substantive removal propriety; only examines procedural mechanics and finds procedural showing lacking |
| Whether the appeal should be stayed pending potential federal filing | Appellants: requested state court to proceed no further until remand | Appellees: oppose stay absent proof of federal filing | Court: Declines stay; orders appeal to proceed until proof of federal filing is provided |
Key Cases Cited
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Del Mar Props., L.P., 443 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (procedural compliance with removal rules determines whether state court jurisdiction lapses pending remand)