2010 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 Third C ir c uit 6-2-2010 

# S imeon Robinson v

. B arb ara Porges P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 10-1460

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and 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 Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S ime on Ro b in s on v

. B ar b ar a P orge s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1210. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1210DL D- 2 0 5 NOT 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 os . 10- 1460, 10- 1533, and 10- 1534

___________ S I M E ON R OB I NS ON, A ppel l ant

v. BA RBA RA PORG ES; J OSH UA CO HEN ; RO BERT H . M ESS ERM AN ; STEVEN R Y A N ; N IA M B R O W N ; T E R R Y B R IG G S ; JO H N D . G R E E N , S h e rif f o f P h ilad e lp h ia Co u n ty ; DAR RE L L R. S T E WART , Un d e r s h e r i f f / P h i l a d e l p h i a Co u n ty ; DAVI D H. D E N E N B E R G ; A N D R E W B L U M ; A D V A N C E D R E A L E S T A T E C O N C E P T S , L .P .; E QUI T Y F I NANC I AL ; CR E DI T - BA S E D AS S E T S E RV I CI NG AND SECURI TI ZATI ON , LLC; FRAN K FED ERM AN ; J OSEPH M AR SHA LL; M I CH ELLE M . BRADF ORD; M S . BARBARA DEEL EY; M RS . CRYS TAL S TE W ART; M R. T RA VI S BR I GGS ; J OS E P H S CH WEI BI NZ ; M R. J AM E S DAVI S , J R. ; M S . WANDA E NGL I S H- DAVI S ; M S . L I L L I AN M. KI NG; F T OWN P RO P E RT I E S 3 L L C; AL AN CA NDE L L ; AM E RI CA N L OAN 2 L L C; S T E RL I NG S E AR CH & ABS T RA CT CO ; A. T RO L L I ; M S . M AR YA WI S NI E WS HI ; M R. J ON S I RL I N; M S . DANA S . P L ON, A tto rn e y& A s s o c ia te M e m b e r o f th e L a w F ir m o f

S ir lin G a llo g ly & L e s s e r, P .C .; S U S A N J. K U P E R S M IT H , A tto rn e y& A ss o c iate M e m b e r o f th e L a w F irm o f

S irlin G al l ogl y& L es s er , P. C . ; J E FFR E Y T . G R O SSM A N , A t t orneyand C r eat or/ O w nerof the G r os s m an Law Fi r m , P. C . ; M R . L A U R E N C E A . M E ST E R , A t t orneyand A s s oci at e/ Par tnerof the G r os s m an Law Fi r m , P. C . ; M r . J A M E S W . Z W O L A K , A t t orney a n d i n h i s Ca p a c i tya s Ch i e f At t o rn e yo f

th e Ci tyo f

P h i l a d e l p h i a La w Of

f i c e ; M R. G A R Y JO N A S , O w ner, Invest or M em ber and R epresent at i ve o f t he R . I. C . O . E nterpri se A l l e ge d a s A dv a nc e d Rea l Es t a t e Conc e pt s , L. P. ; R. C. S. SEA RC H ER S; EA ST- W EST RE AL T Y GR OUP , L L C, NJ ; E AS T - WES T RE AL T Y GR OUP L L C, P A;

P HI L ADE L P HI A P OL I CE DE P AR T M E NT

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- C V - 01390) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on2 ____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ay27, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 2, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Si m eon R obi ns on appea l s fr om or der s of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a. B ecause n o sub st anti al qu est i on i s r ai sed byhis app eal s, w e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent and o rder s. A s the bac kgr ound of thi s cas e i s pr ovi ded i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum and i s fami l i art o the part i es , w e l i m i tourdi s cus s i on t o thos e fa ct s es s ent i al t o our d e c isio n . R o b in so n f

iled a c o m p lain t in f

e d e ra l co u rt in c lu d in g c iv il righ ts c laim s, sta te law , an d c o m m o n law c laim s, a ll aris in g o u t o f th e f o re c lo su re a n d sh e rif

f ’s s a le o f

h is hom e and hi s evi ct i on ther efr om . R obi ns on’ s s ui tfol l ow ed s ever al l egal act i ons i n the s t at e court , i ncl udi ng a mort gage f or ecl os ur e ac t i on fi l ed aga i ns thi m , a l andl or d/ t enant act i on fi l ed aga i ns thi m , and an e j ect i on act i on fi l ed aga i ns thi m . A fourth s ui t , fi l ed by R o b in so n , in w h ich h e c laim e d th a t h e h a d b e e n d e p riv e d o f h is rig h t, t itl e a n d in ter e st toD i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a C our tof A ppeal s v. Fel dm an, 460 U . S. 462 ( 1983) ; R ookerv. 1 F idelityT rust C o . , 2 6 3 U . S . 4 1 3 (19 2 3 ). 3 hi s r eal pr opertyw i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw , w as pendi ng atthe t i m e he f i l ed hi s fede r al c o m p lain t. M anyof the def

endant s i n the fe der al act i on fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s and/ orfor s um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed R obi ns on’ s compl ai nt , det erm i ni ng that itlack ed juri sd ict ion to co n side r R o b inso n ’s fe d era l cl aim s p u rsua n t t o the R o o k erFel dm an doctr i ne; the C our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on over 1 R obi ns on’ s s t at e- l aw cl ai m s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed R obi ns on’ s m ot i on foran e v id e n tiary he a rin g a n d d ism iss e d w ith p re ju d ice h is N o tice o f

L is P e n d e n s. T h e se tim e ly appea l s fol l ow ed. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e b ars R o b inso n ’s claim s. T h e R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e a p p li es to ca ses b rou g h t bystat e-c o u rt l os er s compl ai ni ng of i nj ur i es caus ed bys t at e- courtj udgm ent s r ender ed bef or e the di s tr i ct cou rtproceed i ng s com m enced and i nv i t i ng dis tri ctcou rtrevi ew and rej ect i on of those j udgm ent s . E xxon M obi l C orp. v. Saudi B as i c I ndus tr i es C orp. , 544 U . S. 280, 284 ( 2005) ; G aryv. B r addock Cem et ery , 517 F. 3d 195, 201 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T hi s i s s uch a c a s e . R obi ns on as s ert s thathi s equal pr ot ect i on and due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed b a se d o n th e “ p o licie s, p ro c e d u re s a n d p ro to c o l o f th e o f f ice o f th e S h e rif

f o f P h ilad e lp h iaG iven the f ind ing that itlack ed juri sd ict ion , w e f ind n o erro r i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s 2 d e c isio n s to d e n ya n e v id e n tiary he a rin g a n d to d ism iss R o b in so n ’s N o tice o f L is P end ens. 4 Co u n tyc o n c e rn i n g S h e r i f f ’ s s a l e s o f

f o r e c l o s e d p r o p e r t i e s . ” He a r g u e s th a tth e s e c l a i ms ar e notbarr ed byR ooker - Fel dm an bec aus e theyw er e notpr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed, and that theyare n o t “i n ex tr icab lyintertw ined ” w ith the s tat e c o u rt s’ ad jud icati o n s. H o w ev er, R obi ns on’ s compl ai nt“demands the r eturn of hi s hom e as hi s ow n pr opertyw i th fr ee a nd c lea r d e e d a n d tit le,” a s w e ll as a c tu a l an d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. S u c h a n a w a rd c o u ld o n ly be m ade b yrevi ew i ng and rej ect i ng the st at e cou rtj ud gm ents . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 2