UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61397-CIV-SINGHAL

SAMUEL H. WORRELL, and 

DONNA L. WORRELL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand, filed on 

August 26, 2022 (the “Motion”) (DE [13]). Defendant filed a Response on September 13, 

2022 (DE [18]). No Reply was filed. The Motion is now ripe for this Court’s consideration.

Plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking satisfaction of mortgage under Fla. Stats. 

55.141 and 701.04. (DE [1-2]). Plaintiffs intend to “collaterally attack” what they describe 

as a “fraudulently obtained, void judgment” issued by a Florida state court. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiffs allege Defendant conspired to institute a fraudulent foreclosure action and obtain 

a judgment of foreclosure. Id. at 6–7. Plaintiffs “bring this action for declaratory relief to 

set aside and vacate that fraudulently obtained, void judgment.” Id. Plaintiffs also allege

a claim for breach of contract, a claim for bad faith breach of contract, and a claim under 

the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act. (DE [1-2]). 

The prior foreclosure action was brought by Ditech Financial LLC f/k/a Green Tree 

Servicing LLC in Florida state court against Plaintiffs on February 2, 2018. See. (DE [10-

1]). The state court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Ditech Financial 

Case 0:22-cv-61397-AHS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

LLC on February 21, 2018. See (DE [10-2]). Ditech Financial LLC assigned its credit bid 

at the foreclosure action to Fannie Mae on June 20, 2018. See (DE [10-4]). The subject 

real property was sold at a foreclosure auction to Fannie Mae on July 6, 2022. See (DE 

[10-5]). Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion with the state court to vacate the foreclosure 

judgment on June 23, 2022. See (DE [18-1]). The state court entered an oral order on 

July 6, 2022 and written order on July 11, 2022, denying that motion. See (DE [18-3, 18-

4]). On July 6, 2022, Plaintiffs appealed the order to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. 

See (DE [18-4]). The appeal currently remains pending. See (DE [18-6]).

The instant action was filed in Florida state court on June 23, 2022. See (DE [1-

2]). Defendant received service of the complaint and summons through certified mail on 

June 28, 2022 (DE [1], at 2). Defendant contends there is no record of service of process 

compliant with Rule 1.070 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Defendant timely 

removed this action to this Court on July 27, 2022. See (DE [1-3]).

Plaintiffs seek remand of this action to state court based on the theory that this 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman. See (DE [13]). According 

to Plaintiffs, because their lawsuit seeks to collaterally attack a final judgment issued by 

a state court, this Court is precluded from hearing the case. Id. If this Court were to hear 

this case, Plaintiffs explain, this Court would necessarily be acting in an appellate capacity 

over a state court. Id. This, Plaintiffs contend, is squarely prohibited by Rooker-Feldman

and its progeny.

“Rooker-Feldman means that federal district courts cannot review or reject state 

court judgments rendered before the district court litigation began.” Behr v. Campbell, 8 

F.4th 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 2021). “It bars only cases brought by state-court losers 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61397-AHS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 

judgments.” Id. (citing Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 

(2005)). “The injury must be caused by the judgment itself. Period.” Id. Claims that “seek 

relief for violations that happened during the state processes” and “not rejection of the 

state court judgment” will “fall[] outside Rooker-Feldman.” Id. at 1213. The doctrine “bars 

all appeals of state court judgments—whether the plaintiff admits to filing a direct appeal 

of the judgment or tries to call the appeal something else.” Id. at 1211.

The instant suit explicitly seeks to collaterally attack a state court foreclosure 

judgment issued by a state court. Thus, Plaintiffs are quite literally “state-court losers 

complaining of injuries caused by [a] state-court [foreclosure judgment] rendered before 

the [instant] district court proceeding[] commenced and inviting [this Court’s] review and 

rejection of those judgments.” Id. at 1212. Plaintiffs’ suit in a nutshell seeks to vacate an 

unfavorable foreclosure judgment over their real property. The breach of contract and 

statutory claims are ancillary to this core objective of their action.

Plaintiffs’ pending appeal of their state court judgment is fatal to their RookerFeldman argument. If a party files a federal action seeking to collaterally attack a state 

court judgment while the state court action is pending appeal in state court, the state 

proceeding has not ended for Rooker-Feldman purposes. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 

1266, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291)). “[S]tate proceedings 

have not ended for purposes of Rooker–Feldman when an appeal from the state court 

judgment remains pending at the time the plaintiff commences the federal court action 

that complains of injuries caused by the state court judgment and invites review and 

rejection of that judgment.” Id. at 1279. Here, because Plaintiffs’ appeal of the state court 

judgment they seek to collaterally attack remains pending, Rooker-Feldman does not 

Case 0:22-cv-61397-AHS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

serve as a basis to strip this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, for these 

reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJDUGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion (DE [13]) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of

November 2022. 

Copies to counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61397-AHS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 4 of 4