Clark v. Cascade Financial Services, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

YOLANDA CLARK CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 22-4553

CASCADE FINANCIAL

SERVICES, LLC ET AL. SECTION: “H”

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are Defendant Southwest Stage Funding, LLC’s Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. 10); Defendant Jackson & McPherson, LLC’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 16); and Defendant Judge Anthony Saleme Jr.’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 23). For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this pro se action arising out of the foreclosure of her

property. The exhibits attached to her Complaint reveal that Defendant

Southwest Stage Funding, LLC d/b/a Cascade Financial Services (“SSF”)

instituted an executory process foreclosure action against Plaintiff in the 16th

Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Martin. SSF alleged that Plaintiff

had defaulted on the promissory note it held and that the note was secured by

1

a mortgage on Plaintiff’s property. Defendant Jackson & McPherson, LLC

represented Defendant SSF in the action. On August 18, 2022, the state court

judge, Defendant Anthony Saleme, issued an order seizing Plaintiff’s property

and directing the Sheriff to set it for judicial sale.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on October 17, 2022, raises a series of

allegations arising from the foreclosure proceeding, including claims under the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Consumer Financial Protection

Act, and the Homeowners Protection Act. Specifically, she alleges that the

claims were false, that she was not given an opportunity to show that the

amounts had been paid, that SSF was “double dipping,” that SSF failed to

produce proof of claim, and that SSF did not own the loan. She seeks money

damages.

Defendants each separately move for dismissal of the claims against

them under Federal Rules of Evidence 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on several grounds.

Because this Court finds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this

Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, it need not

address Defendants’ other arguments.

LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of a

federal district court. “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to

adjudicate the case.”1 In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the court

1 Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.

1998).

2

may rely on (1) the complaint alone, presuming the allegations to be true, (2)

the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts, or (3) the complaint

supplemented by undisputed facts and by the court's resolution of disputed

facts.2 The proponent of federal court jurisdiction—in this case, the Plaintiff—

bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.3

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendants each argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter

pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition

to any Motion. The Court may not, however, simply grant the instant Motion

as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic grant of dispositive

motions with considerable aversion.4 Accordingly, the Court will consider the

merits of Defendants’ arguments.

In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,5 the Supreme Court stated that federal

district courts lacked appellate authority to reverse or modify state court

decisions, even if erroneous.6 Six years later, in District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman,7 the Supreme Court stated that federal courts cannot

review state court judicial decisions and cannot address claims “inextricably

2 Den Norske Stats Oljesels kap As v. Heere MacVof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001).

3 See Physicians Hosps. of Am. v. Sebelius, 691 F.3d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 2012).

4 See, e.g., Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc.,

702 F.3d 794, 806 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2006) (per

curiam); John v. State of La. (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. and Univs.), 757 F.2d 698, 709 (5th

Cir. 1985).

5 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

6 See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284–85 (2005).

7 D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

3

intertwined” with the state court decisions.8 Today, “‘the Rooker–

Feldman doctrine holds that inferior federal courts do not have the power to

modify or reverse state court judgments’ except when authorized by

Congress.”9

In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the Supreme

Court addressed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and emphasized that it occupies

“narrow ground.”10 The Supreme Court held that the doctrine only applies to:

(1) cases brought by state court losers, (2) complaining of injuries caused by

state court judgments, (3) rendered before the district court proceedings

commenced, and (4) inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments.11 The two hallmarks of the Rooker-Feldman inquiry are thus: (1)

“what the federal court is being asked to review and reject,” and (2) “the source

of the federal plaintiff’s alleged injury.”12 If the federal court is being asked to

review a decision from a state court judicial proceeding, and the state court

judgment is the source of the injury, then the Rooker-Feldman doctrine denies

the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.13

Here, Plaintiff’s claims satisfy every prong of the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Plaintiff is a “state court loser” because her property was seized and

sold in a foreclosure proceeding in state court. She complains that the

foreclosure of her property, which occurred two months prior to the filing of

8 See Exxon, 544 U.S. at 285–86.

9 Truong v. Bank of Am., N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 382 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Union

Planters Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004)).

10 Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284.

11 Id.

12 Truong, 717 F.3d at 382.

13 See id. at 382–83.

4

this Complaint, was improper or false. She invites this Court to consider

whether the foreclosure was improper, fraudulent, or in violation of federal

law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the

prior state court foreclosure proceeding. Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the state court’s order

of foreclosure. Plaintiff “had an adequate opportunity in state court to

adjudicate her claim that the defendants fraudulently [or improperly] obtained

a writ of seizure and sale.”14 The Fifth Circuit and other sections of this Court

have reached the same result in similar cases.15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motions are GRANTED, and this matter

is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

14 Carter v. Deutche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., No. 10-797, 2010 WL 3074323, at *2 (E.D.

La. Aug. 2, 2010).

15 See Flores v. Citizens State Bank of Roma, Tex., 132 F.3d 1457 (5th Cir. 1997)

(holding that Rooker-Feldman applied where “[t]he sole purpose of this action is to review

the state court’s foreclosure and seizure of property pursuant to the related writ of

execution”); Wylie v. Bank of New York Mellon, 856 F. Supp. 2d 837, 844 (E.D. La. 2012)

(holding that a mortgagor’s claim for damages for obtaining a foreclosure though fraud in

violation of the FDCPA and LUTPA was precluded by Rooker-Feldman because the claims

were inextricably intertwined with those asserted in prior state-court foreclosure proceeding)

(Brown, J.); Carter, 2010 WL 3074323 (holding that a mortgagor’s claims of violations of the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act were inextricably intertwined with a state court’s

judgment ordering issuance of writ of seizure and sale and therefore barred by the Rooker–

Feldman doctrine) (Vance, J.); Johnson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. CV 16-892, 2017 WL

699806, at *5 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017) (holding that claims to enjoin seizure and sale and to

obtain damages were precluded by Rooker-Feldman doctrine) (Lemelle, J.).

5

New Orleans, Louisiana this 26th day of May, 20238.

g TRICHE Lh 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE