Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

340 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ebeh v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-03
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal court review of state domestic relations judgments, and thus denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
• Dominique L. Beeks v. HMC Assets
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-03
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed the case without prejudice.
• Iannarella v. Zeal Hotels Grp., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-02
  The court held that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) and barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Woodroffe v. Coffin
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-09-26
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.
• JXB 84 LLC v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-25
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata, and collateral estoppel barred the appellant's claims because they were or could have been litigated in the prior state court foreclosure action.
• NLG, LLC v. Selective Advisors Grp., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-18
  The appeal is equitably moot because the reorganization plan has been substantially consummated and effective relief cannot be granted without harming third-party creditors.
• Ener v. Martin
  125 La. 1087· S.D. Fla.· 2019-05-21
  The court held that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies, warranting dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
• Shaffer v. Servis One, Inc.
  110 La. 109· M.D. Fla.· 2018-11-05
  The court held that the defendant's communications, a mortgage statement and a 1099-C form, did not constitute debt collection under the FDCPA or FCCPA, thus dismissing the plaintiff's claims under those acts.
• Norkin v. Fla. Bar
  18 La. 1· S.D. Fla.· 2018-04-26
  The court held that all claims against the defendants were subject to dismissal, either due to the statute of limitations, judicial immunity, or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that amendment would be futile.
• Zaychick v. Bank of Am., N.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-11-13
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims were inextricably intertwined with a final state court foreclosure judgment.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. B & A Diagnostic, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2015-04-06
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over State Farm's claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment, and that the claims are not barred by res judicata, Rooker-Feldman, Colorado River, or statute of limitations at the motion to dismiss stage.
• Collins v. Erin Cap. Mgmt., LLC
  850 F. Supp. 2d 673· S.D. Fla.· 2013-10-28
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar FDCPA claims alleging violations in debt collection methods, but it does bar claims seeking damages that would effectively overturn state court judgments. Collateral estoppel does not apply as the FDCPA violation issue
• Mohorne v. Beal Bank
  419 B.R. 488· S.D. Fla.· 2009-11-09
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders denying Mohorne's motions, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the state court's decision regarding the foreclosed property.
• Rolle v. West
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1307· N.D. Fla.· 2009-07-25
  The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge property damage, affirming the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
• Martyak v. Martyak
  378 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-03
  The federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the state court's final judgment on alimony enforcement, and thus remanded the case to state court.
• Child. a & B Ex Rel. Cooper v. Florida
  355 F. Supp. 2d 1298· N.D. Fla.· 2004-09-30
  The court held that while children are entitled to a free public education and the choice to attend private school, they are not constitutionally entitled to attend private school at public expense.
• Cigna Prop. & Cas. v. Ruiz
  254 F. Supp. 2d 1262· S.D. Fla.· 2003-01-21
  A federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review a state court's interpretation of federal law when the parties had a full opportunity to litigate the issue in state court, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• United States v. Abner
  231 F. Supp. 2d 1181· M.D. Fla.· 2002-10-10
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defendants' motions seeking to involve the United States in a state foreclosure action and seeking damages, as the criminal case was closed and the claims were not based on any rule or statute from the criminal case.
• Hadsock v. Bush
  180 F. Supp. 2d 1321· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-04
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar claims under the Medicaid Act but does bar claims under the Adoption and Safe Families Act due to its detailed remedial scheme. The court also found that Younger abstention did not apply.
• In the Matter
  Del.· 2000-12-22
  The Court affirmed the Board's judgment that the Respondent violated four provisions of the Delaware Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the Court retained jurisdiction to determine the appropriate sanction, indicating that further review of the recommended three-year
• Bestor v. Costa Crociere
  128 F. Supp. 2d 1356· S.D. Fla.· 2000-10-25
  The court held that in diversity actions, federal courts must apply state forum non conveniens law when it is more restrictive than federal law, to prevent forum shopping and ensure equitable administration of justice.
• Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye
  2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5456· S.D. Fla.· 2000-04-05
  The court held that the newspaper publishers have standing and that neither the Rooker-Feldman doctrine nor Younger abstention bars their First Amendment claims in federal court.
• Rivers v. Am. Express Centurion Servs. Corp.
  956 F. Supp. 2d 695· M.D. Fla.· 1998-06-11
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for sanctions to the extent that defendant must pay plaintiff's reasonable expenses incurred in bringing motions related to the discovery of corporate documents.
• Dickie v. City OF Tomah
  999 F.2d 252· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-15
  The court held that the recovery of litigation expenses in a condemnation proceeding under Wisconsin law is an ancillary remedy within the original condemnation action, not an independent cause of action. Therefore, a federal court cannot entertain a separate suit for these expen
• Chrissy F. v. MS Dept. OF Public Welfare
  995 F.2d 595· 5th Cir.· 1993-07-07
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against state court judicial officers for actions taken in their judicial capacity, as this constituted a prohibited collateral attack on state court judgments.
• Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Port Auth. OF NEW York & NEW Jersey Police Dep't
  973 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-07
  The court held that federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case that seeks to enjoin a state court's preliminary injunction, as it implicates important state interests in enforcing its judicial orders and is subject to review within the state system.
• Earle A. Partington v. Joseph Gedan & Howard T. Chang
  961 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-14
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding the claims non-justiciable due to mootness, immunity, Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, or failure to state a federal constitutional deprivation.
• LaNAVE v. Minn. Supreme Court
  915 F.2d 386· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-28
  The court held that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court decisions, and that the challenged bar admission rule is constitutional.
• Patterson v. City OF Newport News
  364 F.2d 816· 4th Cir.· 1966-08-08
  The court held that a prior state court condemnation judgment, affirmed by the Supreme Court, bars relitigation of the same issues in federal court.