WPC  P멺żg1 'I.)TX < RW7<׬GaCTUI.J|h?& ERytG X6JIr[a<|tM[IׁB\)0F) Կo W3l~v^~P;yH^l+sTԑǚi0xiᓁ_4яqDeuڌR&Dw1:Eb~7|7+># IA>Pjom`9 kvB NJ2W*ՙRz;2gSdJ`fMnо:ąMPo86]0X#F{(C:ysۗ yH¤Юv]lF+.+qn3j 1{27u4WL ?~) y^`# @UNK % 0(w@4  * D bL :T N 0P ^  m 0  AQ}  U 0DXU: B 0D 0D D/AA Bp D3 0D A D? BGHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ E R E P D R D R Ӏ cl&tttttt3|x waiver- - 0#O@Xd#  ((3/Q$ !   d @u&U(`(25$ !         0   YachatsSugimoto RptrF.SuppExportadoraMeyerlandremovabilityEverhart S.W.!"T$&C<< C } 5$ @ @     1    _\pXXԀAppellee,Defendantbelow,hasfiledwiththisCourta NoticeofNo  OppositiontoAppealinwhichAppelleestatesithasnooppositiontothereliefsoughtbyAppellant. ""  Xp& XXXo$  XXp&   Ad FILEDXp& X o$  March31,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd 'dxd(3$ !  T^y  <<= 8C____3 TripledxdCTriple 1+| d d d !  _'XXX'TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T   fo \pXX  r)<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r    @& & INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE t)>.*jx` `@E` 8ttxP t @(ATNASHVILLE CHRISTINAHOOD   8   ) *   0      8   )6(XXXX6 Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  AppealNo.  J    )  _01A_019807CH352  Z v.   )  j    )  DavidsonChancery * z ЀPRIMETIMERENTALS,INC.,  )  No.981611I :     ) Defendant/Appellee.  ) Z    APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTYATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLECLAUDIABONNYMAN,SPECIALCHANCELLORPRESIDING9,XXX(XX9  RICHARDJ.BRAUN501UNIONSTREETSUITE500NASHVILLE,TENNESSEE37219 ATTORNEYFORPLAINTIFF/APPELLANTJACK,LYON&JONESPHILLIPK.LYONBRUCEH.PHILLIPS11MUSICCIRCLESOUTH,SUITE202NASHVILLE,TENNESSEE37203 ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANT/APPELLEE@$  4 \pREVERSEDANDREMANDEDXX  4  */z*( \pXX   PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,   JUDGECONCUR:CANTRELL,J.KOCH,J.  fo7XXdXXd7    fo#O@Xd#      ;T63  fo7XXdXXd7    fo  8F XXdXXd8      Ag\p@+OPINION  #\pAgf #9,X4X,XXX9  ThePlaintiff,ChristinaHood,appealsthedismissalofhercomplaintand T theimpositionofcourtcostsinstatecourt,followingtheremovalofhersuittofederalcourtbytheDefendant.InthisappealPlaintiffassertsthat,under28U.S.C.1446(d),onceacaseisremovedtofederalcourt,statecourthasnoauthoritytodismissacaseorassesscosts,unlessanduntilthecaseisremanded.Weagree.  PlaintifffiledacomplaintinDavidsonCountyChanceryCourtagainstherformeremployer,PrimeTimeRentalsInc.OnJune26,1998,DefendantfiledaNoticeofRemovalandremovedthisactiontotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee.OnJune29,1998,thestatetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingthisactionandassessingcostsagainstthePlaintiff.Plaintiffnowappealsclaimingthatthestatecourtlacksauthoritytoentersuchanorder.InthealternativePlaintiffclaimsthatherconstitutionalrightstodueprocessandequalprotectionhavebeenviolated. #  1        \   Plaintiffscontentionthatthestatecourtmaynotdismissherclaimandassesscostsonceremovalhasbeeneffectedisbasedon28U.S.C.1446(d)whichprovides:` PromptlyafterthefilingofsuchpetitionfortheremovalofacivilactionandbondthedefendantordefendantsshallgivewrittennoticethereoftoalladversepartiesandshallfileacopyofthepetitionwiththeclerkofsuchStatecourt,whichshalleffecttheremovaland theStatecourtshallproceedno )%* furtherunlessanduntilthecaseisremanded.  +>', p` ~Id.(emphasisadded) .)/   Federalcourtshaveconsistentlyheldthattheremovalofanactiontofederalcourtdiveststhestatecourtofjurisdictiontotakefurtheraction.Pursuantto1446,"ithasbeenuniformlyheldthatthestatecourtlosesalljurisdictiontoproceedimmediatelyuponthefilingofthepetitioninthefederalcourtandacopy 4D07 inthestatecourt."ResolutionTrustCorp.v.Bayside  Developers,43F.3d1230,1239(9th_Cir._Ԁ1994);Moorev.InterstateFire K Insurance,717F.Supp.1193(S.D.Miss1989);SouthCarolinav.Moore,447 6 F.2d1067,1073(4thCir.1971)."Anyfurtherproceedinginthestatecourtintheremovedaction,unlessanduntilthecaseisremanded,wouldbeanullity."π1AMoore'sFederalPractice0.168[3-8-4].Seealso,Caldwellv.Montgomery    WardandCo.,207F.Supp.161(S.D.Texas1962). R    ThecourtsofotherstateshavealsointerpretedSection1446(d)todivestastatecourtofjurisdictiontoproceedfurtheruponthefilingofapetitionforremoval.PacificSpruceCorporationv.CityofYachats,952P.2d575(Or. #s App.1998);Prestonv.AllstateInsuranceCompany,627So.2d1322(Fla.Dist.  Ct.App.1993);Sugimotov.ExportadoraDeSal,284CalRptr.275(Cal.Ct. Y App._1991);_ԀMeyerlandCo.v.FederalDepositInsuranceCo.,848S.W.2d82 D (Texas_1993)._  Inawellreasoned,butunreported,opinion,thisCourtaddressedasimilarissueinBolivarSandCo.v.AlliedEquipmentInc.,1987WL9375(Tenn.  App.April13,1987).InBolivartheDefendantremovedthecasetofederal `  courtfollowingthetrialcourtsdenialoftheDefendantsmotionfordirectedverdict.Afterthefilingoftheremovalpetition,thetrialcourtcontinuedtohearthecaseinstatecourt.ThefederalcourteventuallydeniedtheDefendantspetitionforremovalandremandedthecasebacktostatecourt.Thus,thequestionpresentedinBolivarSandCo.waswhethertheinterveningactionsby g&!* thestatecourtwerevalid.ThisCourtfirstdeterminedthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttoproceedwithadjudicatingthecaseafterremovalwaseffected,_holding:  8    __ 8  8@    8@   __  0    __ 8@     0     8@     __  8@         __      The_Ԁexpresslanguageof1446(e)[sic]anditscaselawprogenyrevealthatoncetheremovaliseffectedthestatecourtwillautomaticallybedivestedofjurisdictionandthefederalcourtwillthenhavethesolejurisdictionfordeterminingthemeritsoftheremoval.Thestatecourtcannotproceedfurther unlessanduntilthecaseisremanded.    Id.at_*5_ c50:     ThisCourtthenexaminedtheeffectofthefederalcourtslaterremandtostatecourt.ThisCourtdeterminedthatwhileearlierlawallowedthestate 94> courttoretainjurisdictionshouldthefederalcourtremandforwantofjurisdiction,1446clearlyprovidesthatremovaliseffecteduponcompletionoftheproceduralstepsspecifiedtherein,irrespectiveoftheultimatedeterminationonremovability.Relyingonathoroughexaminationofcasesfromotherstatesandfromfederalcourts,thisCourtheldthatthefederalcourtsdecisiontoremanddidnotvalidatethestatetrialcourtproceedingswhichtookplacebetweenremovaltoandremandfromthefederalcourt.Mostimportantlyfortheinstantappeal,thiscourtheldthatthestatecourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoproceedfurtheroncetheactionwasremoved.  BaseduponBolivarSandCo.,andourreviewofcasesfromother D jurisdictions,weareoftheopiniontherecanbenoquestionthatastatecourtcanproceednofurtherwhenacaseisremovedtofederalcourt,unlessanduntilthe < caseisremanded.Theonlyremainingquestioniswhetherbydismissingtheactionandtaxingcosts,astatecourthas proceededfurther.  Otherstatecourtshaveadoptedthepositionthatadismissalisaproceedingundersection1446(d)andthat,therefore,onceacaseisremovedtofederalcourt,astatecourthasnojurisdictiontodismissthestatecourtsuit,unlessanduntilthecaseisremanded.PacificSpruceCorporationv.Cityof )d$" Yachats,952P.2d575(Or.App.1998);Prestonv.AllstateInsuranceCompany, 8+&$ 627So.2d1322(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993);Sugimotov.ExportadoraDeSal, \-(& 284CalRptr.275(Cal.Ct.App.1991).ThecourtinSugimotostated: /*( 8  _8@   _8 @ Thusclearlyadismissalwithorwithoutprejudiceisaproceedingundersection1446(d).Assuchthedismissalsherearenotinaccordwithfederallawandthetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontomakesuchorders.    Sugimotov.ExportadoradeSal,284Cal.Rptr.at277. 6N2/   Basedontheforegoingauthority,wefindthatthestatetrialcourterred "9r41 indismissingthePlaintiffsactionandassessingcostsaftertheremovalhadbeeneffectedonJune26,1998.Theexpressstatutorylanguageof1446(d)andcaselawfrommultiplejurisdictionsinterpretingitcompeltheconclusionthatoncetheremovaliseffected,thestatecourtwillautomaticallybedivestedof_authority__to_Ԁproceedfurtherandthefederalcourtwillthenhavethesole_authoritytotakeaction__._ԀThestatecourtcannotproceedfurther"unlessanduntilthecaseisremanded."28U.S.C.1446(d).Thestatecourthasnoauthoritytodismissaremovedactionandtaxcosts_pending__Ԁdispositionoftheremovalordispositionofthelawsuitbythefederalcourt.__  Whilecourtsinterpreting1446(d)havedescribedtheeffectofremovalasadivestingofjurisdictionfromthestatecourt,thelanguageof1446(d)doesnotincludeanyreferencetojurisdiction.Itdoes,however,containaclearanddirectprohibitionagainstfurtherproceedingsbythestatecourt.Thus,theeffectofremovalcanbecharacterizedasanautomatic,statutorilycreatedstayonproceedingsinstatecourt.Thischaracterizationishelpfulinanticipatingandavoidingissueswhichmightotherwiseariseifthefederalcourtremandsacaseafterdeterminingremovalwasimproper.AsthecourtinSugimotoobserved: )d$" 8  8@   A dismissalanda stayarenotthesame.Whenacourtordersa stay,theaction,althoughdormant,remainspendinginthatcourt.Followinga dismissaltheactionisnolongerpending.Andeventhoughthedismissedactioncanbe_refiled_Ԁitmustovercomeadditionalproceduralobstacles,includingbutnotlimitedto,applicablestatuesoflimitations.    284Cal.Rptr.at277.  Thetaxingofcostsbythestatetrialcourtwouldbeappropriatewhenthecaseisresolved.Suchresolutioncouldoccurbydeterminationonthemerits 8`30 bythestatecourtifthefederalcourtremandsthecasedenyingremoval.Or,thefederalcourtcoulddisposeofthecaseonthemerits.Ineithersituation,thestatetrialcourtcouldthentaxcostsinthenormalfashion._  Becausewehavereachedourdecisionbasedonothergrounds,wedonotfinditnecessarytoaddresstheconstitutionalissuesraisedbytheAppellant.  ThetrialcourtsorderdismissingthisactionandtaxingcoststothePlaintiffisherebyvacated,andthecauseisremandedtothe_trial_Ԁ_court_Ԁforsuchfurtherproceedings,ifany,asmaybenecessaryandproper.  Asageneralrule,itisatthispointinouropinionthatwetaxcosts.Wearenotunawareofthe_pa__radoxwhichcouldbeperceived_ԀinthisCourttaxingcostswherewehaveruledthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutauthoritytotaxcosts.However,thisCourthasjurisdictiontodeterminewhetherthetrialcourt_had_authoritytodismissthisactionandtaxcoststothePlaintiffand_hasexercised_thatjurisdictionattherequestof_Appellant__.____Although_ԀAppellantshouldbeconsideredtheprevailingpartyinthisappeal,AppelleedidnotopposethereliefsoughtbyAppellantandgrantedherein._ԀFurther,itwouldappearthatthedismissalofPlaintiffscaseandtheattendanttaxingofcostswasdonebythetrialcourtonitsowninitiativewithoutanyrequestbyAppellee.ThisCourtisvestedwithwidediscretioninthetaxingofcosts.Tenn.R.App.P.40.Wehavecarefullyconsideredtheuniquepostureofthiscase,aswellastheequitiesinvolved.Baseduponthatconsideration,weareoftheopinionthatthecostsofappealshouldbetaxedequallytoAppellantandAppellee.However,thecostsofthetrialcourtclerknormallyincludedascostsonappealshallnotbetaxedtoeitherparty.  8`30 0  0 T$ T$______________________________ T$T$     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE  CONCUR:______________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE(M.S.)______________________________________WILLIAMC.KOCH,JUDGE