Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No 98-3395 c/w 99-1793 SECTION "C" (3)
July 19, 2001
ORDER
On July 18, 2001, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction Against State Court Proceedings. After considering the motion, the arguments of counsel and the applicable law, the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceedings in this case. In the alternative, even assuming that the Court does have jurisdiction, the Court declines to grant the TRO for the reasons provided below.
This case involves a dispute over title to the mineral rights to certain properties located in the Lake-Hatch Sunrise Field area of Terrebonne Parish. Judge Schwartz rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Energy Development Corporation ("EDC") in this case on January 17, 2001. Defendants timely filed an appeal, and the matter is pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff asks this Court, pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, to enjoin Defendants from taking any action in state court that would jeopardize the integrity of the judgment while the case is pending on appeal.
The Court exercised jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See discussion in December 12, 2000 Memorandum Opinion at § I ("The Parties — Diversity Jurisdiction") (Rec. Doc. 91 at 3-5).
As a preliminary matter, the Court questions whether it has jurisdiction over this matter so as to empower it to grant Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. "Jurisdiction over the case passes from the district court to the court of appeals immediately and automatically upon a timely filing of a notice of appeal." Wright Miller Fed. Prac. Proc. § 3949.1 (1999). In dealing with the issue facing the Court today, the Sixth Circuit explained the rationale underpinning this bright-line legal rule:
At the time that the notice of appeal was filed, however, it was possible that the district court would have been reversed. Had we reversed the dismissal of the amended complaint, the district court would then have been in the unenviable position of having issued an injunction to protect and effectuate a judgment reversed on appeal. It is precisely such conflicting rulings that the rule transferring jurisdiction from the district court to the appellate court upon the filing of a notice of appeal is designed to prevent.American Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Assocs., 912 F.2d 104, 110 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1241 (7th Cir. 1986)). Therefore, the Court finds that both the rule and the rationale behind the rule support the conclusion that Defendants' perfected appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's Motion.
Furthermore, even assuming that this Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the state court proceedings, it would choose not to do so. The issues presented to the Court in this TRO are substantially similar to the issues that have been presented to the Fifth Circuit, both in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and on appeal. The Court also notes that these various related matters have been proceeding simultaneously in both state and federal court for approximately four years. The Court has no reason to believe that the state court judge in Jefferson Parish will exercise his authority beyond the bounds provided for by Louisiana law, or that he will inappropriately undermine this Court's judgment. In addition, the Court also takes heed of its obligation to consider principles of equity, comity and federalism in determining whether to enjoin a state court proceeding. See Lektro-Vend Corp. v. Vendo Co., 403 F. Supp. 527, 536 (N.D. Ill. 1975), aff'd 545 F.2d 1050 (7th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds, 433 U.S. 623 (1977) ("[T]he principles of comity and federalism militate against unnecessarily interfering with pending state court actions even if § 2283 is satisfied.").
Defendants' brief to the Fifth Circuit is not due until August 8, 2001, but at the hearing, counsel indicated to the Court what its position on appeal would be. Furthermore, the Court notes that in the judgment rendered in this case, EDC was awarded the "right to full enjoyment of its mineral servitude covering the entirety of the property" described in the judgment. See Judgment at ¶ 3. EDC ongoing entitlement to this relief is one of the primary issues currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
The Court notes that Judge Petrie rendered his decision in the related state court case before the memorandum opinion was issued by Judge Schwartz. The EDC federal suits were consolidated and tried on the merits commencing on May 15, 2000. Judge Schwartz rendered a Memorandum Opinion on December 12, 2000, and issued a judgment on January 17, 2001. The Jefferson Parish litigation was tried on the merits from October 25 to 27, 1999. On December 17, 1999, Judge Petrie issued his judgment. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision on December 4, 2000. On January 3, 2001, EDC filed an Application for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which was denied on March 9, 2001. In light of the fact that the Jefferson Parish litigation has reached a final judgment, there are clearly questions regarding the preclusive effect of the state court proceedings as to the federal litigation. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to make that determination, as this question is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Cf. American Town Ctr., 912 F.2d at 111 (finding that federal court would be expanding and not simply enforcing its decision by ruling on the res judicata effect of its judgment, as doing so would require a comparison of the state complaint and the federal action).
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for temporary restraining order is hereby DENIED.