PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment invites decision in this forum. In consideration of such issue the court has reviewed the official file in the Office of Clerk of Court, and presentations therein filed by opposing counsel, including an affidavit by plaintiff’s counsel and a memorandum in opposition by defendant’s counsel. For reasons herein stated, the motion is denied.
On or about August 10, 1977, plaintiff lodged with the Insurance Commission of *1236the State of South Carolina1 his Summons and Complaint, dated August 8, 1977, and pursued in the County Court for Greenville County, South Carolina. On September 9, 1977, within the time2 provided by federal rules, defendant filed petition and bond for removal of the case to federal court.3 On September 12,1977, within the five (5) days after the filing of the petition, defendant filed4 its answer, as provided by Rule 81(c) [see note 2 infra].
Plaintiff insists that defendant was in default under state law. The fallacy of this reasoning is that state law does not control a case removed; where the state law conflicts with federal law, in removal cases, the latter applies. Once removal occurs, the federal rules take over and govern the time for answering. In dealing with the status of removed litigation in Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright notes in Volume 14 at Section 3738:
The removed case proceeds according to the federal rules of civil procedure and is treated as though it had been commenced originally in the federal court.
See Volume 14, Section 3738 at page 746. See also page 750 and cites at Footnote 18.
Plaintiff had not taken a default judgment in the state court at the time of removal. Had he secured a default judgment before removal, it would be subject to motion to vacate in federal court, and this motion would have been determinable not under the state law but under the federal rules of civil procedure. In setting aside a default judgment taken in state court prior to removal, the court of appeals of the Ninth Circuit in Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783 (1963) had the following to say *1237with respect to the applicability of the federal rules following removal:
The federal rules apply after removal and “neither add to nor abrogate what has been done in the state court prior to removal.” Talley v. American Bakeries Co., 15 F.R.D. 391, 392 (E.D.Tenn.1954). The federal court takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court.
324 F.2d at page 785.
The motion is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.