holding Rooker- Feldman bars claims "based on constitutional or other grounds, that a state court's judicial decision in a particular case has resulted in the unlawful denial of admission to a particular bar applicant"
How later courts described this case
- holding Rooker- Feldman bars claims "based on constitutional or other grounds, that a state court's judicial decision in a particular case has resulted in the unlawful denial of admission to a particular bar applicant"
- “Sovereign immunity bars Uberoi’s due process claim because the Florida Supreme Court is a department of the State of Florida.”
- “Sovereign immunity bars [the Plaintiff’s] claim because the Florida Supreme Court is a department of the State of Florida.” (citing FLA. CONST. art. V, § 1)
- citations and footnote omit- ted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12636
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-02321-TGW
BARBARA U. UBEROI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 18, 2016)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Barbara U. Uberoi appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of her
complaint alleging that the Florida Supreme Court unlawfully denied her
application to become a member of the Florida Bar in violation of federal
bankruptcy law and her right to due process.
Uberoi applied for admission to the Florida Bar in 2010. After conducting
an investigation into her character and fitness, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners
alleged that she had displayed a lack of candor in the admissions process. It also
alleged that Uberoi was financially irresponsible based on delinquencies to various
creditors and the dismissal of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding for failure to
make scheduled payments (she filed for bankruptcy in 2007). Uberoi filed a
written answer to the allegations and the Board held a hearing. It recommended to
the Florida Supreme Court that she be conditionally admitted to the Bar.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected the Board’s recommendation. It denied
Uberoi admission to the Bar, citing her lack of candor and “refusal to repay her
financial obligations.” See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re B.U.U., 124 So. 3d 172,
174–75 (Fla. 2013). It refused to entertain a rehearing on her application. Id. at
175. The United States Supreme Court denied Uberoi’s petition for certiorari.
B.U.U. v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 134 S. Ct. 1949 (2014).
Uberoi then sued the Florida Supreme Court in federal district court. She
alleged that its decision violated 11 U.S.C. § 525(a), which prohibits governmental
2
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 3 of 6
units from discriminating against a person solely because she is a federal
bankruptcy debtor. She also alleged that one of the Florida Supreme Court’s bar
admission rules violated her right to procedural due process because it allowed the
court to deny her admission to the Bar without first holding its own hearing. She
asked for a judgment requiring the court to reconsider its opinion after holding a
hearing on her application. The Florida Supreme Court moved to dismiss her
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and
the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine. The district court2 granted its motion to dismiss.
This is Uberoi’s appeal.
We review de novo issues of subject matter jurisdiction. Univ. of S. Ala. v.
Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 408 (11th Cir. 1999). Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims, “based
on constitutional or other grounds, that a state court’s judicial decision in a
particular case has resulted in the unlawful denial of admission to a particular bar
applicant.” Berman v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 794 F.2d 1529, 1530 (11th Cir.
1986) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S. Ct.
1303, 1317 (1983)). “The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies as long as the party
1
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), and D.C. Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983).
2
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
3
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 4 of 6
had a reasonable opportunity to raise his federal claims in the state court
proceedings.” Dale v. Moore, 121 F.3d 624, 626 (11th Cir. 1997).
In Uberoi’s prayer for relief for her § 525(a) claim, she asked that the district
court enjoin the Florida Supreme Court from refusing to grant her bar application.
That request indicates that her lawsuit “is clearly a challenge to a state court
judicial proceeding resulting in the denial of [her] . . . application.” See Berman,
794 F.2d at 1530. Uberoi’s contention that she did not have an opportunity to raise
her § 525(a) claim in the state proceedings is meritless. As the district court found,
the Board’s allegations about her financial irresponsibility and bankruptcy gave her
the opportunity to argue, either in her written answer or at the formal hearing (or
both), that it was improper for the Board to consider her bankruptcy filing. See
Dale, 121 F.3d at 627 (stating that a bar applicant had a reasonable opportunity to
raise a claim where he received notice that the Florida Board of Bar Examiners
would consider his mental illness in assessing his bar application and had an
opportunity to respond). The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Uberoi’s § 525(a) claim.
District courts do have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine over “general challenges to state bar rules” like Uberoi’s due process
claim. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S. Ct. at 1317. But the court
nonetheless lacked jurisdiction over that claim because sovereign immunity
4
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 5 of 6
independently bars it. Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity prohibits federal
courts from entertaining suits brought by citizens against a state, including its
agencies and departments.3 Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S.
247, 253–54, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1637–38 (2011); Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
276, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2939 (1986). That “bar exists whether the relief sought is
legal or equitable.” Papasan, 478 U.S. at 276, 106 S. Ct. at 2939.
Sovereign immunity bars Uberoi’s due process claim because the Florida
Supreme Court is a department of the State of Florida. See Fla. Const. art. v § 1
(vesting the judicial power of the State in its supreme court and other inferior
courts); see also Kaimowitz v. Florida Bar, 996 F.2d 1151, 1155 (11th Cir. 1993)
(stating that the “Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions against state courts”).
Contrary to her argument, the exception to sovereign immunity established in Ex
Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441 (1908), does not apply because she has
sued only the Florida Supreme Court and not any individual state officers. See
Stewart, 563 U.S. at 254–55, 131 S. Ct. at 1638 (stating that the exception applies
only where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief against a state official, not “when the
state is the real, substantial party in interest”) (quotation marks omitted); P.R.
Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146, 113 S. Ct.
3
Sovereign immunity does not apply where a state waives it or Congress validly
abrogates it, but Uberoi does not argue that either of those exceptions applies to this claim.
5
Case: 15-12636 Date Filed: 04/18/2016 Page: 6 of 6
684, 688–89 (1993) (“[The exception] has no application in suits against the States
and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought.”).
AFFIRMED.
6