Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05954/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05954-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens of the State of Nevada
Defendant
Douglas J. Gould
Plaintiff
Frank W. Rupp
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK W. RUPP and DOUGLAS J.

GOULD

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF

NEVADA

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 07-05954 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On November 26, 2007 plaintiffs Frank W. Rupp and Douglas J. Gould filed this action

against the citizens of the state of Nevada. In their complaint, plaintiffs claim that the “citizens of

the state of Nevada,” via the Nevada state trial court, made an erroneous decision. To wit, they

claim the Nevada state trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the disposition of a

condominium in San Francisco that was formerly owned by plaintiff Rupp. This decision by the

“citizens of the state of Nevada” has caused plaintiffs a great amount of consequential harm and they

come to this court seeking a remedy.

The 2003 contract for the sale of the condominium in question—a California Residential

Purchase Agreement Standard Contract Form—has a provision that any disputes regarding the

contract be resolved by mediation or arbitration. Complaint, Exh. 1 at 5. The buyer and seller were

signatories to this contract. It is unclear, however, whether the title company was bound by this

contract. After execution of the contract, the California title company brought suit in Nevada state

court claiming that they had overpaid plaintiff Rupp $75,000 in error and that he had refused to

return the funds. In 2004, the Nevada state trial court granted summary judgment for $77,817.54 in

favor of the title company for Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received. Id., Exh. 3. 

Plaintiff Rupp appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Nevada and this appeal was dismissed

Case 3:07-cv-05954-MHP Document 3 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

on July 25, 2006 because the trial court’s judgment was not final with respect to all claims brought

by the title company. Id., Exh. 8. Subsequently, on March 26, 2007, the Nevada state trial court

issued a final ruling with respect to all of the claims brought by the title company. Plaintiff Rupp

has not appealed this decision. He claims he filed a motion on March 26, 2007 to waive the appeal

fees and has not, to date, received a response from the state trial court and that the 30-day window to

appeal has now elapsed.

The proper resolution of this matter necessarily involves reviewing the Nevada state trial

court’s decision. This court, however, lack subject matter jurisdiction over the Nevada state court’s

decision. Specifically, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction because “[a]s courts of

original jurisdiction, [district courts] do not have jurisdiction over direct challenges to final decisions

of state courts, even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” 

Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 890–91 (9th Cir. 1989). “This rule applies even though the

direct challenge is anchored to alleged deprivations of federally protected due process and equal

protection rights.” Id.; District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 484–87

(1983). Indeed, this is a fundamental tenet of our federalist system: Federal district courts are

courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only exercise original jurisdiction; the United States Supreme

Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review state decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Rooker v. Fidelity

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Because the complaint seeks a review of the merits of a state court

action, this district court is powerless to adjudicate plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s proper course of

action would be to appeal (or reopen) the Nevada state trial court’s proceedings in the Nevada state

courts. Plaintiff may have federal court review through certiorari to the United States Supreme

Court after the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled upon his case.

In addition, even if plaintiffs meet the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction through

diversity jurisdiction, this action must be dismissed. Though the amount in controversy seems to be

over $75,000, the “citizens of the state of Nevada” likely refers to the judicial body in Nevada that

issued the judgment against plaintiff Rupp. The judges that comprise the judicial body, however,

have complete judicial immunity. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). A judgment regarding

Case 3:07-cv-05954-MHP Document 3 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

3

plaintiff Rupp’s ownership of the condominium in San Francisco and monies owed was clearly a

judicial function and therefore, under Pierson, the judges involved in that decision have absolute

judicial immunity with respect to that decision. It must be noted that “[t]his immunity applies even

when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it is not for the protection or

benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the

judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of

consequences.” Id.

In sum, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a basis upon which this court may exercise subject

matter jurisdiction. Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint must be DISMISSED. This court recommends

that plaintiffs appeal (or reopen) the decision made by the Nevada state trial court in order to pursue

their desired relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2008 _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-05954-MHP Document 3 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 3