Summary
The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review a state court's preliminary injunction order after the case was removed to federal court, because that statute only authorizes appeals from orders "of the district courts," not state courts. The court rejected the argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1450 transforms a state court's injunction into an order of the district court for appeal purposes; rather, § 1450 merely preserves the injunction's effect until the district court modifies or dissolves it. The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that parties may seek review by first asking the district court to modify or dissolve the state-court injunction and then appealing that decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review a state court's preliminary injunction order after the case has been removed to federal district court.
Holdings
- The court of appeals lacks jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) to review a state court's injunction order because the statute only authorizes appeals from interlocutory orders 'of the district courts,' not state courts.
Key quotations
“the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from ... Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions” (at 6)
“All 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.” (at 7)
Factual background
The Moellering family owned property on Lake Michigan and recorded a Declaration of Restriction on Land Use to preserve wetlands. They sold parcels to the Schulers and later to the Adamses. The Adamses obtained a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment to build a home, but the Schulers objected, claiming the construction violated the restrictive covenant. The state court granted a preliminary injunction stopping construction. The Adamses then filed a third-party complaint against the Corps and the Department, leading to removal to federal court.
Procedural history
The Schulers sued the Adamses in Michigan state court, seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant. The state court issued a TRO and later a preliminary injunction. The Adamses filed a third-party complaint against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. The Corps removed the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The Adamses then appealed the state court's preliminary injunction order and the order denying reconsideration to the Sixth Circuit.