Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1678 civilTIMO'?HY HOGG, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ;~laintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HIGHMARK, INC. d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA BLUE SHIELD, Defendant : No. 99-1678 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE HOFFER~ P.J.~ OLER~ J. and GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT ANDNOW, .,~,4,~ '~ , 2000, upon careful consideration of both parties' briefs and argument, defendant's Writ of Certiorari is granted. Accordingly, District Justice Manlove's judgment against defendant is stricken and District Justice Manlove is directed to take no further action in this matter. By the Court, Bridget E. Montgomery, Esquire One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 For the Defendant Mr. Timothy J. Hogg 128 Forest Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pro se TIMOTHY HOGG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : C~ iMBERLAND COUNTY, i'~ ~!: ~'.~; N S'¢LVAN IA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HIGHMARK, INC. d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA BLUE SHIELD, Defendant : No. 99-1678 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J and GUIDO, J. OPINION HOFFER, J.: Before the court is a Praecipe for Writ of Certiorari filed by defendant asking the Court to strike the District Justice's judgment against defendant and to direct the District Justice to take no further action in this matter. Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendant before the District Court 9- 1-02, in Cumberland County, which has been docketed at CV-0000417-98. The complaint alleges that plaintiff's wife opted for coverage for plaintiff and family under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (hereinafter "COBRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 et seq., while employed by defendant. After plaintiff's wife became pregnant, the complaint avers that coverage premiums were retroactively raised without prior notification or justification. Because of a pre-existing condition, plaintiff claims that he and his wife were forced to buy a more costly continuing coverage policy. Plaintiff's coverage was terminated for non-payment on March 31, 1998. The complaint seeks a judgment of $2323.72, NO. 99-1678 CIVIL TERM the difference in premium costs between the two policies from Nov. 1, 1.o.~:.' to July 31, 1998. Defendant was served with a copy of the complaint on October 6, 1998. Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania on November 5, 1998, which has been docketed at 1: CV-98-1817. Defendant's removal to the Middle District of Pennsylvania is premised upon the allegation that the case arises under a federal statute, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("COBRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§1661, et seq. The existence of a federal question vests original jurisdiction in the federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) and (b). Defendant properly provided notice of the removal to the District Justice and to the plaintiff, and made a motion in federal court to dismiss the claim. Plaintiff filed a motion with the federal court to remand the matter to state court. Both defendant's Motion to Dismiss and plaintiff's Motion to Remand remain outstanding in federal court, waiting disposition. Despite notice of removal, the District Justice found that the proper jurisdiction of the case is the State Court System and, consequently, adjudicated the case. Defendant failed to appear at the hearing to argue the facts in the case and Judgment was entered for plaintiff. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d), when a case has been removed to Federal 2 NO. 99-1678 CIVIL TERM Court, the State Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter unless and until the matter is remanded by the Federal District Court. Since the present case has been properly removed to federal court, defendant's Writ for Certiorari is granted. The District Justice's judgment against defendant is hereby stricken and the District JL~stice is directed to take no further action in this manner on the grounds that he is without jurisdiction while the matter is properly pending before the federal court. 3