Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-01713/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-01713-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is so named after two cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

SKIT INTERNATIONAL, LTD. PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:05CV01713 JLH

DAC TECHNOLOGIES OF ARKANSAS, INC.

f/k/a DAC TECHNOLOGIES OF AMERICA, INC.,

and DAC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants pursuant to an

Opinion and Order entered on June 6, 2006. Skit International, Ltd., filed a motion for

reconsideration. Document #28. The Court then asked for supplemental briefing on the issue of

whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes subject matter jurisdiction in this case.1

 After

reviewing the supplemental briefs, the Court has come to the conclusion that this case falls squarely

within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The Eighth Circuit has explained:

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that district courts do not have subject matter

jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions in judicial proceedings. Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923);

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S. Ct.

1303, 1311, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). The only court with jurisdiction to review

decisions of state courts is the United States Supreme Court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at

486, 103 S. Ct. at 1316. A federal district court has jurisdiction over general

constitutional challenges if these claims are not inextricably intertwined with the

claims asserted in state court. Keene Corp., 908 F.2d at 296. A claim is inextricably

intertwined if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court

wrongly decided the issues before it. Id. at 296-97. In other words, Rooker-Feldman

precludes a federal action if the relief requested in the federal action would

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 6
2

effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling. Landers Seed Co. v.

Champaign Nat'l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811, 115

S. Ct. 62, 130 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1994). Accordingly, to determine whether RookerFeldman bars Charchenko’s federal suit requires determining exactly what the state

court held and whether the relief requested by Charchenko in his federal action

requires determining the state court’s decision is wrong or would void its ruling. If

the relief requested in the federal action requires determining that the state court

decision is wrong or would void the state court’s ruling, then the issues are

inextricably intertwined and the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction to

hear the suit. 

Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (footnote omitted). The RookerFeldman doctrine is broader than claim and issue preclusion because it does not depend upon a final

judgment on the merits. Id. at 983 n.1.

The claim that Skit advances here was first presented to the Pulaski County Circuit Court in

a motion to set aside the judgment entered against it earlier. Skit filed a one-page brief in support

of the motion in which it asserted that the judgment was void because Skit was never served with

process and because Skit lacks minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas. After a hearing, the

Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion to set aside the judgment.

Here, Skit’s complaint requests that this Court issue a declaratory judgment stating that the

judgment entered in the Pulaski County Circuit Court is void because Skit was never served with

process and because Skit lacks minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas. In effect, Skit is

asking this Court to reverse a state-court decision or to void its ruling overruling these arguments.

The relief that Skit seeks would require this Court to determine that the Pulaski County Circuit Court

was wrong when it refused to set aside the judgment. Indeed, in the pending motion for

reconsideration, Skit asserts as a basis for reconsideration that the state court “apparently based its

ruling on the defendants’ assertion that Victor Lee’s brother-in-law owned Skit which we know not

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 6
3

to be true.” The relief sought here is precisely what an appellant seeks: a declaration that the ruling

below was erroneous.

Skit attempts to avoid this conclusion by noting that it tried to appeal the ruling of the Pulaski

County Circuit Court but the Supreme Court of Arkansas refused to hear the appeal. Skit argues that

the supreme court’s refusal to hear the appeal from the motion to set aside the judgment means that

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. In support of that argument, Skit cites Simes v.

Huckabee, 354 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2004). There, before the action was filed in federal court, the

Phillips County Circuit Court had held five members of the Phillips County Quorum Court in

contempt for failing to order a sales-tax election as required by Arkansas law and as ordered by the

circuit court, and the quorum court members had appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas. In

their appeal, they had raised issues under both state and federal law. However, the Supreme Court

of Arkansas ruled only on the state law issues, ignoring the federal claims. Id. at 826. Then, the

quorum court members filed the action in federal district court “alleging a host of federal statutory

and constitutional violations.” Id. The district court dismissed the action based on the RookerFeldman doctrine. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit, the issue was “whether Rooker-Feldman

prevents a district court from obtaining jurisdiction over federal claims where a state court declined

to address the same claims in state proceedings.” Id. at 828. The Eighth Circuit held that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar a claim by the five quorum court members in federal court and

explained:

[F]ederal plaintiffs cannot be said to have had a reasonable opportunity to raise their

federal claims in state court where the state court declines to address those claims and

rests its holding solely on state law. We have noted the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is

founded upon principles of federalism. However, the district court’s holding in this

case extends such doctrine far beyond the deference to our state colleagues which

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 6
4

federalism counsels. Were the district court’s reasoning to stand, defendants in state

court would be placed in the following quandary: if they do not raise their federal

claims in the state proceedings, they run the real risk of not being able to bring them

subsequently in federal court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n.16, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (“By

failing to raise his claims in state court a plaintiff may forfeit his right to obtain

review of the state-court decision in any federal court.”). But if they do raise federal

claims in their state court defense, and the state court declines to address them, then

according to the district court in this case they are also barred from bringing those

claims in federal court. No principle of federalism suggests or requires such a result.

Simes, 354 F.3d at 829. Simes did not hold that a federal district court may serve as a surrogate

appellate court if the state appellate court has refused to entertain the plaintiff’s appeal, which in

substance is Skit’s argument. Rather, Simes held that “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar

federal claims brought in federal court when a state court previously presented with the same claims

declined to reach their merits.” Id. at 830. Here, the arguments that Skit seeks to present were

presented to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, and that court rejected them, whereas in Simes the

plaintiffs sought to present federal claims that were presented to a state court but were never

adjudicated on the merits by that or any other state court.

In Crutchfield v. Countrywide Home Loans, 389 F.3d 1144, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004), the court

stated:

Mr. Crutchfield appeals the district court’s ruling that notice in the state court

foreclosure action was proper. Rooker-Feldman bars our subject matter jurisdiction

to entertain this argument. The District Court for Oklahoma County held that Mr.

Crutchfield was personally served with a summons in the manner required by law

and that the court “approves the service as meeting the statutory requirements.” In

response to the defendants’ first motion for summary judgment in federal court, Mr.

Crutchfield contended that the state court’s holding was contrary to Oklahoma’s

notice statute. This was, in substance, a request that the federal district court

overturn the judgment of the state court, which the federal court may not do. When

a state court actually decides an issue, Rooker-Feldman prevents federal courts from

hearing an appeal of that claim.

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 4 of 6
5

Id. at 1148 (citation omitted). This case is substantially similar to Crutchfield. See also In re

Knapper, 407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005); Girard L. McEntee Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Valley Nat’l Bank,

No. 105-1952, 2006 WL 1097839 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 21, 2006).

The Supreme Court recently explained the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as follows:

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of the kind from which the

doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161

L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). This case falls squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as explained by

the Supreme Court. A judgment was entered against Skit by the Pulaski County Circuit Court. Skit

moved to set the judgment aside because it was not served with process and because it did not have

minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas. The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Skit’s

motion. Thereafter, Skit commenced this action and asked this Court to hold that the judgment

entered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court is void and should be set aside because Skit was not

served with process and because Skit lack minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas. In

substance, Skit is asking this Court to review the decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court

denying the motion to set aside the judgment. The present action is the functional equivalent of an

appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order denying the motion to set aside the judgment.

Am. Reliable Ins. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2003). This Court does not have

appellate jurisdiction. In re Goetzman, 91 F.3d 1173, 1177 (8th Cir. 1996). That the Supreme Court

of Arkansas declined to accept Skit’s appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court does not vest this

Court with appellate jurisdiction. That Skit argues for an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 5 of 6
6

for cases decided by a state trial court but deemed unappealable by the state appellate court simply

confirms that Skit is asking this Court to serve as a surrogate appellate court to review the decision

of the Pulaski County Circuit Court.

This Court has no appellate jurisdiction over the Arkansas courts and cannot review their

decisions except to the limited extent it is authorized to do so in cases in which prisoners seek writs

of habeas corpus. Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2005). This Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction to review the decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying Skit’s motion

to set aside the judgment. Therefore, Skit’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Document #28.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2006.

J. LEON HOLMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-01713-JLH Document 35 Filed 09/01/06 Page 6 of 6