govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00806-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
RAPHA MINISTRIES, ) 
 ) 
               Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
          vs. )  Case No. 4:26-cv-00806-MTS 
 ) 
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE ) 
COMPANY, ) 
 ) 
               Defendant. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
Defendant Liberty Mut ual Insurance Company removed this action from the Circuit 
Court of the City of St. Louis, the Twenty- Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri.  Doc. [1]; see 
also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).  Attorney “Samuel Henderson on behalf of Plaintiff Rapha 
Ministries” filed a Notice with this Court stating that it lacks subject -matter ju risdiction.  
Doc. [9].  To this Notice, he attached a “Motion Opposing Removal,” Doc. [9-2], and informed 
this Court that he “intends to argue his motion before the State Court because the State Court 
still retains jurisdiction.”  Doc. [9].  Attorney Henderson’s legal contention that the State court 
“still retains jurisdiction” over this matter is flat-out wrong.    
Once a removing party files “a copy of the notice  [of removal] with the clerk of [the] 
State court,” the “State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”   
28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).  See also  Doc. [8 -1] (Defendant’s state-court-file-stamped Notice of 
Filing Notice of Removal).   Since the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court has recognized 
that a “state court ‘los[es] all jurisdiction over the case ’” after removal.  See  Roman Cath. 
Archdiocese of San Juan, P.R. v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 63–64 (2020) (quoting Kern 
v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 493 (1881)).  Any subsequent proceedings in the state court prior 
Case: 4:26-cv-00806-MTS     Doc. #:  10     Filed: 05/28/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
- 2 - 
 
to remand are “absolutely void.”  Id.; accord Beery v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 64 Mo. 533, 
534–35 (1877) (“[T]he State Court could proceed no further with the cause, and any attempt 
in that direction was coram non judice .”).  “If issues of fact arise upon the averments of the 
petition for removal, the jurisdiction to try them is in the federal court, and not in the state 
court.”  Boatmen’s Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen, 135 F. 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1905) (joined by 
Van Devanter, J.). 
With this well-settled legal principle in mind, the Court will construe Attorney 
Henderson’s “Notice to the Federal Court Regarding Having No Diversity Jurisdiction,”  
Doc. [9], as Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and deny the Motion without prejudice.  Plaintiff 
shall file a proper Motion in this Court that complies with the Court’s Local Rules and applies 
the correct legal standard to the issue at hand.  See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(A) (requiring a moving 
party to file “with each motion a memorandum in support of the motion, including any relevant 
argument and citations to any authorities on which the party relies”); 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (setting 
forth the applicable procedure following removal from state court); see also Dart Cherokee 
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87–89 (2014) (explaining the pleading and 
evidentiary standards for establishing the amount in controversy on removal). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand, Doc. [9], is DENIED 
without prejudice.   
Dated this 28th day of May 2026. 
  
              
MATTHEW T. SCHELP 
      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case: 4:26-cv-00806-MTS     Doc. #:  10     Filed: 05/28/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight