2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-27-2005 

# Ayres -F ount ain v

. E S a v B ank P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2418

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ayr e s -F oun t ain v

. E S a v B a nk " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 326. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/326NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 2418

________________ 

### CA RO LINE P. AY RE S- FO UN TA IN, Appe l l ant

v. EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, aMaryl and Cor por at i on

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

F o r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00439) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr.

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober14, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM C ar ol i ne A yr es - Fount ai n appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng her compl ai nt . A ppel l ee ha d i ns t i tut ed a f or ecl os ur e ac t i on agai ns tA yr es - Fount ai n i n t heA yre s -F o u n ta in a rg u e s th a t a p p e lle e h a s w a iv e d th is a rg u m e n t. 

### Howe ve r , we have 1 

### an ob li gati onto sua s po nte r ai sethe i ss ue of subj ec t- m atte r juris diction. Desi ’s Pizz a, Inc. v. City

of Wi lkes -Bar

re , 321 F.3d41 1, 42 0 (3dCir. 20 03 ).

2 Super i orC our tof D el aw ar e. T he Super i orC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof appel l ee. A yr es - Fount ai n t hen fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e al l egi ng fr aud byappel l ee a nd s eeki ng r eci s s i on of the mort gage not e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thathercl ai m s w er e barr ed byt he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a and g r a n t e d a p p e l l e e ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . Ayr e s - F o u n t a i n f i l e d a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l , a n d we h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W hi l e A yr es - Fount ai n l i s t s four t een number ed i s s ues on appea l , t heycan be s um m ar i zed a s t w o bas i c ar gum ent s - w hetherr es j udi cat a appl i es t o hercompl ai ntand w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtsh o u ld h av e p erm itted h er to a m en d h er c o m p lai n t. H o w ev er, w e m u st fir st ad d ress w h ethe r t h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion o v er A yres-F o u n tai n ’s co m p lai n t. A p p ell ee arg u es th at t h e D istri ct C o u rtlack ed juri sd ict ion u n d er the R o o k erFel dm an doctr i ne. W e agr ee. T he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne depr i ves a fe der al di s t r i ct 1 c o u r to f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w, d i r e c t l yo ri n d i r e c t l y , a s t a t e c o u r ta d j u d i c a t i o n . S e e D. C. Cour tof A pp e a l s v. Fe l dman , 46 0 U. S. 46 2 ( 19 83 ) ; Rooke rv. Fi d. Tr us tCo. , 26 3 U. S. 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (1 9 2 3 ). A f

e d e ra l cla im is b a rre d if it i s “ in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d ” w ith th e sta te cour tadj udi cat i on. W e r ece nt l ynot ed that [ a ] f e d e ra l cla im is in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith a n iss u e a d ju d ica ted b ya sta te c o u rt w h e n . . . the f

e d e ra l co u rt m u st ta k e a n a c tio n th a t w o u ld n e g a te th e sta te cour t ’ s j udgm ent. . . . R ooker - Fel dm an does notal l ow a pl ai nt i ff t o s eek r el i ef t hat, i f granted, w ou l d p revent a st at e cou rtfrom enfo rci ng i t s order s.3

I n r e K napper , 407 F. 3d 573, 581 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n t hi s cas e, t he Super i orC our tor der ed ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f a p p e llee b a se d o n A yre s-F o u n tain ’s d e f a u lt o f th e ter m s o f

th e n o te and mort gage. I n hercompl ai ntfi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , A yr es - Fount ai n s ought r eci s s i on of t he mort gage a nd damages . T hus , t he r el i ef s he s eeks w oul d i nval i dat e the Super i orC our t ’ s j udgm entagai ns ther . A yr es - Fount ai n’ s pr opos ed amended compl ai nt w oul d notcur e thi s l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. M or eover , even i f r evi ew of the compl ai ntw er e notbarr ed byR ooker - Fel dm an, w e a g re e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t A yre s -F o u n ta in ’s c la im s w e re b a rr e d b yre s ju d ic a ta . Fur t her m or e, w e not e thati n t he s t at e courtact i on, A yr es - Fount ai n agr eed thats he w ai ved al l defe nses. For t he above r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 31, 2005, or der and r emand t he mat t ert o t he D i s t r i ctC our tw i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t he compl ai ntfor l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s t r i ke appe l l ee’ s br i ef i s deni ed.