2009 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 10-1-2009 

# S ir a vo v . C ountry W

ide H ome P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4108

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 mor e 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 ir a vo v . C ountry W

ide H ome " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 528. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/528NOT 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. 07- 4108

___________ N. V. S I RA VO; * F . A. S I RA VO

vs. CO U N TR Y W I D E H O M E LO A N ; D EU TSC H E B A N K N A TI O N A L TR U ST C O M PA N Y , T rus t ee; M O R G A N ST A N L E Y A B S C A PI T A L I , I N C . , T R U ST 2004- NCZ, M ORTGAGE P ASS - THROUGH CERT I F I CATE S , S ERI ES 2 0 0 4 - NCZ N . V . SI R A V O , A ppel l ant *( D i s m i s s ed perC l erk’ s O r derof 12/ 4/ 07)

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cv- 01112) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : O ctob er 1 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A p p e llan t N ich o las V . S ira v o a p p e a ls f ro m th e d ism iss a l o f

h is c iv il su it2

p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(6 ). F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f ir m . O n J une 28, 2007, N i chol as and Fel i ci a Si r avo fi l ed s ui ti n fede r al di s t r i ct cour tagai ns tA ppel l ees C ount r yw i de H om e Loan ( “C ount r yw i de”) , D eut s che Bank N at i onal T rus tC om panyand M or gan St anl eyA B S C api t al I . , I nc. al l egi ng br eac h of con t ract , predat oryl end i ng , neg l i gen ce, and un speci fi ed civi l ri gh t s and d ue p rocess v io latio n s. T h e ir c laim s a ro se o u t o f C o u n tryw id e ’s a lleg e d m isre p re se n tatio n s a b o u t th e ir m or t gage, i ncl udi ng C ount r yw i de’ s al l eged f ai l ur e t o pr oper l ynot i fythem of t he cha nge in m o rt g a g e s e rv ic e rs a n d th e irre s u lta n t p ro b le m s in o b ta in in g c re d it a n d f in a n c in g . U ltim a te ly, th e S ir a v o s lo s t th e irh o m e to a f o re c lo s u re a c tio n . Pr i ort o t he i ni t i at i on of thei rfede r al s ui t , the Si r avos had fi l ed thr ee l aw s ui t s i n s t at e courtal l egi ng harm ar i s i ng outof the s ame i ni t i al s etof fa ct s al l eged here. T he N ov em ber 200 4 suit , fi l ed b yN i cho l as Sir avo on l y , soug ht dam ages ag ai nst C ount r yw i de forl ack of not i ce r egar di ng the cha nge i n t he companys ervi ci ng the m o rt g a g e . S ir a v o c la im e d th a t th e la c k o f n o tic e re s u lte d in a m is s e d m o rt g a g e p a ym e n t. S ira v o v . D e u tsc h e B a n k N a tio n a l T ru st C o ., N o v e m b e r T e rm , 2 0 0 4 , N o . 1 7 7 4 (P a . C t. C om . Pl . N ov. 2004) . T hatl aw s ui ts ett l ed on M ar ch 3, 2005, w i t h an agr eementby Si r avo t o a gene r al r el eas e of a l l exi s t i ng cl ai m s agai ns tC ount r yw i de ar i s i ng outof the m or t gage l oan. T he s econd s ui t , fi l ed i n J ul y2005, s oughtdamages agai ns tC ount r yw i de for breach o f t he set t l em ent agr eem ent. S i ravo v. D euts che C ou ntryw i de H om e L oan s,3

I nc. , J ul yT erm , 2005, N o. 1914 ( Pa. C t . C om . Pl . J ul y2005) . T he courtdi s m i s s ed the cas e w i t houtpr ej udi ce f orSi r avo’ s fai l ur e t o s ubs t ant i at e br eac h of the s ett l ement a g r e e m e n ta n d f

o rh i s f a i l u r e t o d e m o n s t r a t e w h a td a m a g e s w e r e s u f f e r e d . A p p a r e n t l y, S ir a v o d id n o t a p p e a l o r s e e k re c o n s id e ra tio n o f th e c o u rt ’s o rd e r. I n D ece m ber2005, t he Si r avos fi l ed a thi r d l aw s ui t . T he compl ai ntonce agai n s oughtdamages forC ount r yw i de’ s fai l ur e t o not i fyand br eac h of the s ett l ement agr eement . See Si r avo v. C ount r yw i de H om e Loans, I nc. et . al . , D ece m berT erm , 2005, N o. 2259 ( Pa. C t . C om . Pl . D ec. 2005) . I n addi t i on t o nami ng C ount r yw i de, the Si r avos s oughtdamages agai ns tD eut s che Bank and M or gan St anl eyw i t h r egar d t o t he mort gage for ecl os ur e r es ul t i ng fr om t he mi s s ed l oan paym ent s . O n A ugus t21, 2006, the C our tof C om m on Pl eas di s m i s s ed the s ui tas r epet i t i ve of the fi r s t . T he courtal s o advi s ed the S ir a v o s th a t th e irp ro p e r r e m e d yw a s to re -o p e n th e o rd e r d is p o s in g o f th e 2 0 0 4 s u it. T aking t he co urt ’s sugg est i on , S i ravo at t em pted t o re- op en h i s fi rs tcase against C ount r yw i de, ar gui ng t hatA ppel l ees br eac hed the s ett l ementagr eementr es ol vi ng that act i on. Si r avo al s o fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the s ett l ementagr eement . T he C our tof C om m on P l eas den i ed b oth of m oti on s and S i ravo did no tapp eal tho se orders .

Fol l ow i ng di s m i s s al of thei rthi r d l aw s ui ti n s t at e court , the Si r avos fi l ed the i ns t antcompl ai ntal l egi ng t hatA ppel l ees vi ol at ed thei rci vi l r i ght s and var i ous fede r al l aw s . C ount r yw i de moved t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntar gui ng thati tw as barr ed byr es j udi cat a and the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed i t s m ot i on and,F eli cia S ir av o h as b ee n d ism issed fro m this ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o a C lerk’s o rde r. 1 4 ci t i ng t he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a, di s m i s s ed the ca s e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rf i n a l o r d e r s o f

d i s t r i c tc o u r t s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew o f

th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) i s p le n a ry. M c G o v e rn v . C ity o f P h ila ., 5 5 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e a g ree w ith A p p ell ee s tha t Sirav o ’s claim s are b arred b ythe R o o k erFel dm an doctr i ne and ther efor e the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have di s m i s s ed the ca s e forl ack o f su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . T h e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e “ p ro h ib its D istric t C o u rts fr om adj udi cat i ng act i ons i n w hi ch the r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es det erm i ni ng w hethert he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on i s w r ong orvoi di ng the s t at e court ’ s rul i ng. ” W al kerv. H orn, 385 F .3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s a n d in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d .) H e re , to t he ex t ent that Si ravo at t em pts t o ch al l eng e C ou ntryw i de’s s ervi ci ng of h i s l oan , tho se cl ai m s w er e r es ol ved i n a s t at e courts ett l ementagr eement . Si r avo att empt ed t o fi l e a s epar at e l aw s ui tconce r ni ng t he agr eementand, w hen thatfai l ed, at t empt ed t o r e- open the or i gi nal cas e and a l s o fi l ed a mot i on t o enfor ce the s ett l ementagr eement . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas deni ed both m ot i ons and Si r avo di d notappea l . ( Supp. A pp. 12- 13. ) T he r el i ef Si r avo now s eeks w oul d r equi r e a f eder al cour tt o ei t heri nval i dat e the s ett l ement agreem ent ordeterm i ne thatt he st at e cou rt ’s refusal t o re- exam i ne the part i es’ compl i ance w i t h t he agr eementw as w r ong. U nderthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, nei ther is pe rm issi b le. S ee D esi’s P izza , Inc . v . C ityo f W il k es-B arre, 32 1 F . 3 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 9 (3d C ir .5

2 0 0 3 ). Fur t her , even i f Si r avo’ s cl ai m s w er e notbarr ed byR ooker - Fel dm an, they wo u l d b e b a r r e d b yt h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a . Th e p r i n c i p l e o f r e s j u d i c a t a b a r s c l a i ms t hatw er e br ought , orcoul d have be en br ought , i n a pr evi ous act i on. I n r e M ul l arkey , 536 F . 3d 21 5, 22 5 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yapp l i ed the sam e factor s a Penns y l vani a courtw oul d appl yi n det erm i ni ng w hetherr es j udi cat a bar s Si r avo’ s fede r al c l a i ms , n a me l y : 1 ) wh e t h e rt h e a c t i o n i n th e Co u r to f Co mmo n P l e a s i n v o l v e d th e s a me “ca us e of a ct i on” as t he fe der al cl ai m s ; 2) w hetherthe part i es had the ca paci t i es t o s ue or be s ued i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas ; and 3) w hetherthe l i t i gat i on i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on on t he mer i t s . See Lance v. D enni s , 546 U . S. 459, 4 6 6 (20 0 6 ); T u rne r v. C raw fo rd S q u are A p artm en ts I II, L . P . , 4 4 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (l ist ing fa ctors n ec essa ryfo r res jud icata inq u iry ).

H e re , the f

irst e lem e n t is sa tisf

ied in a sm u c h a s S ira v o ’s f irst c o m p lain t, w hi ch l ed t o t he s et t l ementagr eement , cont ai ned the s ame al l egat i on as hi s fede r al compl ai nt : t hatm i s comm uni cat i ons r egar di ng hi s l oan and e r r or s C ount r yw i de comm i t t ed led to th e f

o re c lo su re o f

h is h o u se . (S u p p . A p p . 6 1 -6 7 .) F u rth e r, S ira v o ’s th ird law su it br oughtcl ai m s r el at ed t o C ount r yw i de’ s br eac h of the s ett l ementagr eement . Second, w h ile S ira v o n a m e d o n lyC o u n tryw id e in th e f irst c o m p lain t, he c o u ld h a v e n a m e d b o th D eut s che Bank and M or gan St anl eyand di d s o i n t he thi r d l aw s ui t . I n anyevent , though he names bot h D eut s che Bank and M or gan St anl eyi n t he capt i on, i tdoes notappea rt hatS ir a v o m a k e s a n yc la im s a g a in s t e ith e r o f th e s e d e f

e n d a n ts in h is f

e d e ra l c o m p la in t. T hi r d, underPenns y l vani a l aw , a court - appr oved s ett l ement , s uch as the one Si r avo agr eed t o, cons t i tut es a fi nal , val i d j udgm entforpurpos es of cl ai m pr ecl us i on. B ear off v. B ear off Bros . , I nc. , 327 A . 2d 72, 75 ( Pa. 1974) . Fi nal l y , the C our tof C om m on Pl eas di s m i s s ed Si r avo’ s t hi r d s t at e courtl aw s ui tw i t h pr ej udi ce butnot ed thatSi r avo had a n opt i on t o r e- open the 2004 ac t i on. A s di s cus s ed above , Si r avo’ s at t empt s t o r e- open that a c tio n w e re u n su c c e ss f

u l. W e th e re f

o re f in d th a t th e sta te c o u rts a lso re jec ted th e m e rits of Si r avo’ s cl ai m s bas ed on br eac h of the s ett l ementagr eement . See G ambocz v. Y el encs i cs , 468 F. 2d 837, 840 ( 3d C i r . 1972) ( “[d] i s m i s s al w i t h pr ej udi ce c ons t i tut es an adj udi cat i on of the mer i t s as ful l yand compl et el yas i f the or derhad bee n ent er ed af t er t r i al ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , even i f notbarr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, Si r avo’ s cl ai m s ar e barr ed byt he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a.

Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt.

6