Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07576/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER REGARDING JUDGE COUSINS’ GRANT OF LEAVE TO AMEND 

 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

AUDREY L. KIMNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAPITAL TITLE OF TEXAS, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-07576-EJD 

ORDER REGARDING JUDGE 

COUSINS’ GRANT OF LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 10 

 On November 18, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Audrey Kimner filed a Complaint against 

Defendants Capital Title of Texas, LLC, JEM Advisory Group, LLC, Tanglewood Condominium 

Owners, First Service Residential, Ceasons Holdings, LLC, various individuals associated with 

those entities, and her former lawyer, Margaret A. Poissant. Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. 1 at ECF 

3–6. 

 Magistrate Judge Cousins was first assigned the case. After granting Plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, Judge Cousins found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim 

against the corporate Defendants and related individuals and that she failed to establish personal 

jurisdiction over Ms. Poissant. Judge Cousins granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. See 

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; Screening Complaint Under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (“Judge Cousins Order”), Dkt. 5. 

 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 12, 2019. See Add and Amend to 

Original Complaint (“Amended Compl.”), Dkt. 10. This amended complaint fails to resolve the 

legal shortcomings identified by Judge Cousins. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 

DISMISSED with prejudice in part and DISMISSED with leave to amend in part. 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 13 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER REGARDING JUDGE COUSINS’ GRANT OF LEAVE TO AMEND 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

I. Allegations in the Complaint 

 The factual allegations remain the same: Plaintiff owned a midrise condominium in 

Houston, Texas. Amended Compl. at 8, 9. In 2017, Plaintiff lost her home and valuable furniture 

within it. See id. at 3, 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Capital Title, JEM Advisory, and their 

agents fraudulently took her property. Id. at 3, 4. After her first attorney died, she hired Ms. 

Poissant to represent her in an unsuccessful lawsuit against Capital Title, JEM Advisory, and their 

agents. See id. at 5–6. Plaintiff sues these Defendants for fraud, violation of her civil rights, and 

unlawful foreclosure. See Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff also sues Ms. Poissant for deficient or unethical 

representation during her state court lawsuits. 

II. Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

 The Court must screen every civil action brought in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a) and must dismiss any case that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A. Claims Against Corporate Defendants and Related Individuals 

 In his November 2019 order, Judge Cousins noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may 

prevent the Court from hearing Plaintiff’s case. Judge Cousins’ Order at 2–3. The doctrine 

prevents federal courts from hearing appeals of state-court judgments. See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 

F.3d 772, 777–78 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The doctrine bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction 

not only over an action explicitly styled as a direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ 

of such an appeal.”). 

As Judge Cousins’ noted, Plaintiff’s claims “largely revolve around the foreclosure of her 

condominium.” Judge Cousins’ Order at 2. That foreclosure, however, was the subject of a state 

court lawsuit. See Kimner v. Capital Title of Tex., LLC, 2018 WL 10015675, at *1 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 

Oct. 19, 2018) (granting Ceasons Holdings, LLC’s motion for summary judgment); Kimner v. 

Capital Title, 2018 WL 10015673, at *1 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Oct. 19, 2018) (granting Capital Title of 

Texas’ motion for summary judgment); Kimner v. Title, 2018 WL 10015674, at *1 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 13 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER REGARDING JUDGE COUSINS’ GRANT OF LEAVE TO AMEND 

 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Dec. 7, 2018) (granting FirstService Residential Houston, Inc. and Tanglewood Condominium 

Owners Association, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment). As indicated by Plaintiff’s civil cover 

sheet, she “removed [the action] from state court.” See Dkt. 1-1. There are two problems with 

this: first, this litigation is a “de facto direct appeal” as Plaintiff wants this Court to review the 

decisions of the Texas trial court. This is improper under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Second, 

28 U.S.C. § 1446 only allows defendant(s) to remove a civil action from state court to federal 

court. Hence, the removal statute does not authorize Plaintiff to remove her own action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Capital Title of Texas, LLC, JEM Advisory 

Group, LLC, Tanglewood Condominium Owners, First Service Residential, Ceasons Holdings, 

LLC, and the various individuals associated with those entities are DISMISSED with prejudice.1 

B. Claims Against Ms. Poissant 

Plaintiff also sues her former lawyer, Ms. Poissant, for deficient and/or unethical 

representation. Judge Cousins instructed Plaintiff that she needed to show that the Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Ms. Poissant. 

Plaintiff, however, has failed to plead a claim for attorney malpractice. See Edwards v. 

Kaye, 9 S.W.3d 310, 312 n.1 (Ct. App. Tex. 1999) (“To be successful on an attorney malpractice 

claim, one must establish that the claimant would have prevailed on the underlying claim but for 

the attorney’s malpractice.”). Because Plaintiff has not pled facts that plausibly show she would 

have prevailed on her underlying claim but for Ms. Poissant’s malpractice, Plaintiff has failed to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to 

amend her claim only as to Ms. Poissant. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint by February 

28, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, this Court will dismiss the case with 

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) (stating court must dismiss pro se action if determines 

that plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted). 

1

 In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, she discusses judicial misconduct by Judge Kirkland (the 

judge who presided over her state court action). She expressly states that she is “not nam[ing] the 

judge” in this action. Amended Compl. at 11. 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 13 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 4
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07576-EJD

ORDER REGARDING JUDGE COUSINS’ GRANT OF LEAVE TO AMEND 

 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

III. Conclusion 

 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint as to Ms. Poissant by 

February 28, 2020. The amended complaint must cure the deficiencies noted in this Order or the 

Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim(s) against Ms. Poissant. The claims against Defendants 

Capital Title of Texas, LLC, JEM Advisory Group, LLC, Tanglewood Condominium Owners, 

First Service Residential, Ceasons Holdings, LLC, and the various individuals associated with 

those entities are DISMISSED with prejudice.

 Before filing an amended complaint, this Court strongly urges Plaintiff to seek assistance 

from the Pro Se Program (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj). The Federal Pro Se 

Program provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in federal civil 

cases. The program is located in Room 2070 in the San Jose United States Courthouse, and is 

available by appointment Monday to Thursday 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The Program can also be 

reached by calling (408) 297-1480. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 28, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-07576-EJD Document 13 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 4