Francisco Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Francisco Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a party may not fraudulently evade removal by drafting a complaint so that the true purpose of the law suit is artfully disguised.”
84 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Attilus v. Emblemhealth Administrators, Inc. (flsd, 2017-02-09) · Strongest negative: In Re Ben Carter (ca5, 1980-05-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" In Re Ben Carter
5th Cir. · 1980 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
But cf. Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1976) (in practice the courts consider the facts disclosed on the record as a whole). 10 . 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (1976) provides: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Attilus v. Emblemhealth Administrators, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a party may not fraudulently evade removal by drafting a complaint so that the true purpose of the law suit is artfully disguised.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Racca v. EFG General Partner Corp.
E.D. Tex. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Courts will, however, typically look beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether removal is proper.” Frank, 128 F.3d at 922 (citing Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 6 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976)); see Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas, 963 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 955 (1992); Rivera v. Orion Marine Grp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Francisco Negrete v. City of Oakland
9th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Eyak Native Vill. v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773 , 777–78 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that district court properly “recharacterized” plaintiffs’ claims as “federal claims” asserting an “independent action for relief from [a federal] judgment” on grounds of fraud, at least where plaintiffs sought to represent parties in privity with those represented in the prior judgment); Villareal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976) (recharacterizing artfully pleaded state court action as a motion under Rule 60(b)(3) to amend federal court judgment involving same plainti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Visalia v. Mission Linen Supply (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Eyak then cited two Fifth Circuit 17 cases, Villareal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976) and Deauville 18 Assocs., Inc. v. Lojoy Corp., 181 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1950), for the proposition that “an action to 19 obtain relief from a federal judgment presents a general federal question, which may support 20 removal to federal court.” Id. at 778.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Payroll Management, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Yoohoo Capital LLC.” Instead, Lexington asserts that “Appellants will not be able to dispute that all three members of Yoohoo Capital LLC are citizens of Georgia.” In determining whether this is true, which would render Yoohoo diverse, we “consider the facts disclosed on the record as a whole.” Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sharon Palkow v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Harry Crawford and Diane Tavares
6th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Since appellant’s claim in the instant action is essentially one claiming fraud as the grounds for relief, the district court properly considered it as being within the purview of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and granted appellee’s petition for removal. 529 F.2d at 1221 (quotation and citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Polkow v. CSX Trans
6th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
P. 60(b)(3) and granted appellee’s petition for removal. 529 F.2d at 1221 (quotation and citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Menoken v. McNamara (2×)
D.N.J. · 2003 · confidence medium
R.Civ.P. (because plaintiffs suit necessarily seeks to nullify a federal court judgment on grounds of fraud in the litigation process, citing Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976), inter alia), and “because an essential ingredient for recovery upon plaintiffs claim against any of these named defendants requires proof that plaintiffs underlying federal claims were meritorious and that final judgment on those claims must be set aside.” (Slip Op. at 14.) On October 9, 2002, despite this Court’s finding of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff filed a notice …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamal v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Insurance
S.D. Tex. · 2000 · confidence medium
“Courts will, however, typically look beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether removal is proper.” Frank, 128 F.3d at 922 *803 (citing Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976)); see Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas, 963 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 955 , 113 S.Ct. 413 , 121 L.Ed.2d 337 (1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert S. Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co.
5th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Patterson v. Hamrick
E.D. La. · 1995 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976) (party may not evade removal by drafting a complaint so that true purpose of lawsuit is artfully disguised).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baccus v. Parrish
5th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976); Deauville Assoc. v. Lojoy Corporation, 181 F.2d 5 (5th Cir.1950).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corporation (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Relying on Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976), the court concluded that the reply brief raised a federal claim sufficient for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Allstate Ins. Co.
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976); Kerbow v. Kerbow, 421 F. Supp. 1253, 1258 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Allstate Insurance Company (2×)
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976); Ker- bow v. Kerbow, 421 F.Supp. 1253, 1258 (N.D.Tex.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mask v. Chrysler Corp.
N.D. Ala. · 1993 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976) (referring to 14 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3734, 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Woolard v. Heyer-Schulte
S.D. Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
Just a year earlier, however, Judge King had written that “this court should be guided by the principle that ‘in practice, the federal courts usually do not limit their inquiry to the face of plaintiffs complaint, but rather consider the facts disclosed on the record as a whole in determining the propriety of removal.’ ” Landmark Tower Assoc. v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 439 F.Supp. 195, 196 (S.D.Fla.1977), quoting Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greg Griswold v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Wisconsin Telephone Company, Bell Communications Research, Incorporated, Mid-Plains Telephone Company and L.M. Berry & Company
7th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
"The proper avenue of redress for a party seeking relief from a judgment claiming fraud as grounds for relief is Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3)." Villareal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976); see 7 James W.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zoila-Ortego v. B J-Titan Services Co.
E.D. La. · 1990 · confidence medium
Under such circumstances, removal would be appropriate under Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5 Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) King Provision Corp. v. Burger King Corp.
M.D. Fla. · 1990 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976) (following settlement of the federal action, the plaintiff repled in state court state-law claims which were essentially identical to the prior federal law); Alabama v. Mills Family Bakery of Alabama, Inc., No. CV90-PT-0978-M, at 90-167936 5 n. 3 (N.D.Ala.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain R.
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · confidence medium
It is equally well established that a challenge to the continuing validity of a federal judgment, made by a motion seeking relief from that judgment, poses a federal question (see, e.g., Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nowling v. Aero Services International, Inc.
E.D. La. · 1990 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5 Cir.1976); See also Federated Dept.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.
E.D. Tex. · 1989 · confidence medium
Corp., 677 F.2d 571 , 575 (7th Cir.1982); Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976); Orsini, 637 F.Supp. at 41 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armond J. Eitmann v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Sheet Metal Workers v. Carter, 450 U.S. 949 , 101 S.Ct. 1410 , 67 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219 *367 (5th Cir.1976); Romick v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 197 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1952). 11 We think that, in a case such as this, to limit our inquiry to the face of the complaint would unduly hamper the policy underlying section 301.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roy E. Fajen v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company, Inc. (2×)
10th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
The district judge did not address these tests but instead held removal proper because he concluded that jurisdiction existed to protect the effect of his prior decision in CIV 77-211-M, citing Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. National Con-Serv, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1981 · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976); Winters Gov’t Sec.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority
E.D. Pa. · 1981 · confidence medium
Vil-lareal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maxwell v. First National Bank
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); Tennessee v. Union & Planters’ Bank, 152 U.S. 454 , 14 S.Ct. 654 , 38 L.Ed. 511 (1894); Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maxwell v. First National Bank of Monroeville
1st Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 29 S.Ct. 42 , 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454 , 14 S.Ct. 654 , 38 L.Ed. 511 (1894); Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976). 12 We recognize that this case presents a close question for removal, but we interpret the claim as one challenging ownership solely under state law rather than one calling for interference in the operations of a national bank. 4 A case involving the latter might be more likely to "arise under" the laws of the United States. 5 Finding the interpretation of state law to be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated v. Helen Echo Haydu
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
While district court I did have Merrill Lynch’s motion to compel before it and could have reviewed it in deciding whether or not federal jurisdiction existed, Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976), it appears that the court did not consider the propriety of arbitration.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Landmark Tower Assoc. v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago
S.D. Fla. · 1977 · confidence medium
However, in reaching an understanding of the nature of the complaint, this court should be guided by the principle that “ ‘in practice, the federal courts usually do not limit their inquiry to the face of plaintiff’s complaint, but rather consider the facts disclosed on the record as a whole in determining the propriety of removal.’ ” Villareal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert S. FRANK v. BEAR STEARNS & CO
unknown court · confidence medium
Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Texas
E.D. Tex. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baccus v. Parrish, 45 F.3d 958, 960 (5th Cir.1995)(citing § 1441(a) and Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976)); see also Nowling v. Aero Services Int'l, Inc., 734 F.Supp. 733 (E.D.La.1990)(“[A] state[-]law claim is said to have federal character when ... it calls into question a federal court order.”).
cited Cited "see" Samuel Davis v. Cluet, Peabody & Company
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1979); 14 C.
cited Cited "see" Davis v. Cluet, Peabody & Co.
11th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1979); 14 C.
discussed Cited "see" Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,050 Mary Frances Erspan, Cross-Appellant v. Lloyd J. Badgett, Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
Consequently, once the district court in the case sub judice determined that defendant’s obligation to plaintiff was not dischargeable, the court properly acted to prevent the relitigation of that issue in the bankruptcy court. 5 28 U.S.C. § 1652 ; see Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1222 (5th Cir. 1976).
cited Cited "see" Thompson v. Gillen
E.D. Va. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Jefferson
S.D. Tex. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc. , 529 F.2d 1219 , 1220-22 (5th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (upholding district court's permanent injunction against prosecuting any future cause of action arising out of subject of present suit); Pickens v. Lockheed Corp. , 990 F.2d 1488 , 1489 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (forbidding appellant from filing any further pleadings concerning transaction over which appellant had already brought a series of frivolous cases without court approval), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 1044 , 114 S.Ct. 689 , 126 L.Ed.2d 657 (1994).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lundahl v. Public Storage Management, Inc.
10th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 683 F.2d 331, 336 (10th Cir.1982) (Seth, J., dissenting); see also Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Anne M. Pavilonis v. Edward J. King
1st Cir. · 1980 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219, 1222 (5th Cir. 1976); Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837, 842 (3d Cir. 1972); Ward v. Pennsylvania New York Central Transportation Co., 456 F.2d 1046, 1048 (2d Cir. 1972); Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 900-02 (9th Cir. 1961) (injunctions against relitigation) with Chandler v. O’Bryan, 445 F.2d 1045, 1056-57 (10th Cir. 1971); Omernick v. Doyle, 426 F.Supp. 404, 407-08 (W.D.Wis.1977) (injunctions denied). 8 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." John T. Fackelman v. Griffin B. Bell, Attorney General
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Villarreal v. Brown Express, Inc., 529 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1976); see Moore’s Federal Practice 160.24[5].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Francisco VILLARREAL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BROWN EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
75--3963.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 5, 1976.
529 F.2d 1219
Guy H. Allison, Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Lucian Touchstone, Dallas, Tex., Thomas H. Sharp, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Wisdom, Thornberry, Tjoflat.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This case is an appeal by appellant Francisco Villarreal from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granting ap-pellee Brown Express, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that appellant take nothing, that the case be dismissed on its merits, and that appellant be permanently enjoined from prosecuting any future cause of action growing out of or in any way incident to the occurrence which was the subject matter of a previous suit which was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

A resolution of the issues in this case requires an explanation of the sequence of events which led to this appeal. On December 2, 1972, appellant was involved in an accident with a truck operated by Brown Express. Following the accident, appellant and others filed a law suit against Brown Express in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.' This law suit for personal injuries was settled for $309,123.17, and the district court judge entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Seven days after the order of dismissal was entered, appellant filed a suit in a district court of the State of Texas, alleging that Brown Express had converted a tire that was on the vehicle in which appellant was riding when the accident, (which was the subject matter of the first law suit filed in federal district court), occurred. According to appellant’s complaint in state court, the tire allegedly converted by Brown Express was such an important piece of evidence that he was forced to settle his case for personal injuries for substantially less than he could have otherwise obtained.[*1221] As a result, appellant claims that he is entitled to $1,000,000.00 for the conversion of the tire, and $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages. Brown Express filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 to have the case removed to a United States District Court. The United States District Court held that removal was proper because: (1) appellant’s complaint is essentially an attempt to increase his recovery for the personal injuries that were the subject of the prior law suit in the United States District Court; and (2) by seeking to institute a suit in state court, appellant sought to circumvent two orders of the United States District Court in the first suit; the district court judge felt that the attempted circumvention also created a federal question since a federal district court is empowered to protect its jurisdiction. Deauville Associates v. Lojoy Corp., 181 F.2d 5 (5 Cir. 1950). Appellant then filed a motion to remand the case to the state district court. This motion was denied, and the original law suit filed in federal court was reopened and consolidated with the present law suit. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. This appeal resulted from the district court’s order dismissing appellant’s claim on the merits and permanently enjoining appellant from attempting to prosecute a cause of action based on the occurrence which was the subject matter of the first suit filed in federal district court.

I.

We are convinced that the district court was correct in exercising removal jurisdiction in this case.

A party may not fraudulently evade removal by drafting a complaint so that the true purpose of the law suit is artfully disguised. Romick v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 197 F.2d 369, 370 (5 Cir. 1952), citing Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281, 38 S.Ct. 237, 239, 62 L.Ed. 713, 715 (1918). “. . in practice, the federal courts usually do not limit their inquiry to the face of plaintiff’s complaint, but rather consider the facts disclosed on the record as a whole in determining the propriety of removal.” 14 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3734, (1976), citing Nunn v. Feltinton, 294 F.2d 450 (5 Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 817, 82 S.Ct. 829, 7 L.Ed.2d 784 (1962).

Although appellant’s complaint purports to seek damages for conversion of a tire, it is our opinion that the claim in this case is essentially one to recover additional damages for personal injuries, and can be viewed as an action which attacks the order of dismissal entered by the district court in the prior suit between these parties. The damages alleged by appellant are not based on the actual value of the tire, but on the alleged fraudulent concealment of the tire. In order to demonstrate any unique value that the tire might have, appellant would have to prove that a fraud was perpetrated upon him during the settlement negotiations in the prior law suit.

The proper avenue of redress for a party seeking relief from a judgment claiming fraud as grounds for relief is under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). “If the independent action is brought in a state court, it may be removed to the appropriate federal court on the basis of a general federal question.” 7 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.38[1] (2nd Ed. 1975), citing Deauville Associates v. Lojoy Corp., 181 F.2d 5 (5 Cir. 1950). Since appellant’s claim in the instant action is essentially one claiming fraud as grounds for relief, the district court judge properly considered it as being within the purview of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and granted appellee’s petition for removal.

II.

It also appears that the district court judge acted properly in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellee submitted answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that tended to .show that the tire in question was not altered or converted, while appellant filed no response to ap-[*1222] pellee’s motion for summary judgment. Even when the evidence presented to the district court is . . viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion . . United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176, 177 (1962), we do not think that there was any genuine issue of material fact, and that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

III.

Finally, we feel that the district court did not act improperly when it issued an injunction enjoining appellant from further prosecuting any cause of action growing, out of the accident which was the subject matter of this suit and the first suit for personal injuries. It is permissible for a federal court to enjoin relitigation of a matter adjudged by a federal judgment. 7 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.37[2] (2nd Ed. 1975), citing Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U.S. 399, 43 S.Ct. 458, 67 L.Ed. 719 (1923).

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.