FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 20, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 06- 14960, 07- 10483 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 0 0 7 0 - CV- KLR R I C H A R D D . C O H E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W O R L D O M N I F I N A N C I A L C O R P ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 20, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R i char d D . C oh en, a l i ce nsed att orney procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s ( 1) gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nton hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 c om pl a i nti n f a vor of W or l d O m ni F i na nc i a l C orpor a t i on ( “ W or l d O m ni ” ) on r e s j udi c a t agr ounds ( C a s e N o . 0 6 - 1 4 9 6 0 ) ; a n d ( 2 ) a w a r d o f a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s to W o r ld O m n i, p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 8 (b ) (C ase N o . 0 7 -1 0 4 8 3 ). C o h en ’ s § 1983 c om pl a i nta l l e ge d a v io la tio n o f

th e C o m m e r c e C la u s e . C o h e n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n r e s ju d ic a tag r o u n d s b e c a u s e n o n e o f th e s ta te court s t o w hi ch he pres ent ed hi s C om m er ce C l ause ar gu m entaddres se d thi s f eder al c l a i m . C ohe n a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a w a r di ng a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s be c aus e hi s § 1983 c om pl a i ntw a s notf r i vol ous , unr e a s onabl e , or g r o u n d l e s s a n dwa s n o tf i l e d i n b a d f

a i th . F o rth e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, we r e m a n d th e c a s e s to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rf u r th e rc o n s id e r a tio n c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on. I . FA C TS a. B ef ore t h e S tate C ou rt W hi l e l i vi ng i n N e w Y ork, C ohe n l e a s e d a c a r . T he l e s s or ’ s i nt e r e s ti n the l ea se w as as si gn ed t o W orl d O m ni . P ursuantt o N ew Y ork st at e l aw re qu i ri ng prepa y m e nt , a tthe i nc e pt i on of the l e a s e , of

s a l e s t a x on the t ot a l l e a s e pa y m e nt s due3

dur i ng the l e a s e t e rm , C ohe n i m m e di a t e l y pa i d t o W or l d O m ni s a l e s t a x on a l l of the l e a s e pa y m e nt s f

orthe 36- m onth l e a s e . T he r e a f t e r , C ohe n m ove d t o F l or i da w i th the l ea se d car . P ursuantt o F l ori da l aw re qu i ri ng m on thl y pay m entof use t ax al on g w i th the m on thl y l ea se paym ent s, W orl d O m ni soug htt o col l ec tfr om C oh en us e t a x f ore a c h of

the r e m a i ni ng m onthl y l e a s e pa y m e nt s . C ohe n pa i d the F l or i da us e t a x f orappr oxi m a t e l y 15 m onths be f or e r e f us i ng on the gr ounds tha the previ ou sl y had pai d sal es t ax i n N ew Y ork. T here af t er , C oh en appl i ed a “ se t -off ” e qua l t o the a m ountof

hi s 15 m onths of

F l or i daus e - t a x pa y m e nt s t o hi s r e m a i ni ng le a s e p a y m e n ts . B e c a us e of

hi s r e f us a l t o c ont i nue pa y i ng the F l or i daus e t a x, W or l d O m ni de c l a r e d the l e a s e i n de f a ul t , r e pos s e s s e d the c a r , a nd s ue d C ohe n i n s t a t e c our tf or d am ag es stem m in g fr o m h is b re ac h o f th e lea se . In re sp o n se to W o rld O m n i’ s F l or i daa c t i on, C ohe n s ubm i tt e d a n a ns w e ra dm i tt i ng non- pa y m e ntbut c o u n te r c la im in g th a t W o r ld O m n i a c tu a lly h a d b r e a c h e d th e le a s e a n d lib e le d h im . I n de f e ns e of W or l d O m ni ’ s br e a c h- of - l e a s e c l a i m , C ohe n a r gue d tha tc ol l e c t i ng the F l ori da use t ax w i tho utcr edi tfor the previ ou sl y pai d N ew Y ork sal es t ax vi ol a t e d the C om m e r c e C l a us e . W or l d O m ni the n m ove d f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt o n C o h e n ’s c o u n te r c la im . T he s t a t e c our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o W or l d O m ni on the i s s ue of4

li ab il ity b as ed so lely o n C o h en ’s n o n -p ay m en t, w ith o u t ad d re ss in g C o h en ’s const i tut i on al defe nse. A ft era j ury tri al on the i ss ue of dam ages , C oh en w as o r d e r e d to p a y a m o n e y ju d g m e n t. C o h e n ap p e a le d th e ju d g m e n t to th e s ta te appel l at e c ou rt , agai n rai si ng hi s c on st i tut i on al defe nse. T he st at e app el l at e c ou rt pe rc ur i a m a f

f i rm e d the j udgm e ntw i thouta w r i tt e n opi ni on. C ohe n s ubm i tt e d a p e titio n f o rw r it o f

c e r tio r a r i to th e s ta te d is tr ic t c o u r t o f ap p e a ls , a g a in r a is in g h is c ons t i tut i ona l de f

e ns e . T he s t a t e di s tr i c tc our tof appe a l s de ni e d c e r t i or a r i w i thout aw r i tt e n opi ni on. C ohe n the n pe t i t i one d the U . S . S upr e m e C our tf orw r i tof ce rt i orar i . T he U . S . S up re m e C ou rtdeni ed C oh en’ s pet i t i on w i tho uta w ri tt en o p i n i o n . In 2 0 0 5 , C o h en p ai d th e m o n ey j u d g m en tan d al l asso ci at ed att o rn eys’ f e e s . b . B ef ore t h e D i st ri ct C ou rt T here af t er , C oh en fi l ed a 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 com pl ai nti n d i stri ctcourt a ga i ns tW or l d O m ni , a l l e gi ng tha tW or l d O m ni vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe C o m m erce C l au se. C o h en co n ced ed th ath e h ad rai sed th i s C o m m erce C l au se ar gu m enti n F l ori da st at e c ou rt . W orl d O m ni fi l ed a m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent , ar gu i ng thatC oh en’ s c ause of ac t i on w as barr ed by the do ctri ne of re s ju d ic a tab e c a u s e h is C o m m e r c e C la u s e a r g u m e n t w a s r a is e d a n d f u lly litig a te d in F lo r id as ta te c o u r t. C o h e n r e s p o n d e d th a t r e s ju d ic a tad id n o t b a rlitig a tio n o f h isRooker v. F idelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct . 149, 150, 68 L .Ed. 362 1 (1 92 3) ; D istri c t of

Columb ia

Court of Appe als v . F e ldm an, 46 0 U .S. 46 2, 47 6- 82 , 1 03 S.Ct . 1303, 1311-15, 75 L .Ed.2d 206 (1983). 5 C o m m e r c e C la u s e a r g u m e n t in f e d e r a l c o u r t b e c a u s e th e F lo r id as ta te c o u r ts d id n o t a d d r e s s h is c o n s titu tio n a l d e f e n s e o n th e m e r its . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d W o r ld O m n i’s m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourtappl i ed thi s C i rc ui t ’ s r es j ud i ca t a l aw and reas on ed th a t th e is s u e p r e s e n te d in C o h e n ’s § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t, n a m e ly , w h e th e rW o r ld O m ni w a s e nt i t l e d t o i m pos e F l or i daus e t a x on C ohe n w i thoutc r e di tf orthe previ ou sl y pai d N ew Y ork sal es t ax, and the op er at i ve nu cl eus of f ac t s f rom w hi ch the i s s ue a r os e , w e r e i de nt i c a l t o the i s s ue a nd f a c t s i n the s t a t e c our ta c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f

i e d tha tC ohe n’ s a r gum e nt , tha tthe s t a t e c our t s ha d not c ons i de r e d the m e r i t s of hi s c ons t i tut i ona l de f

e ns e , w a s i rr e l e va ntt o i t s c onc l us i on, a s th e d o c tr in e o f

r e s ju d ic a taap p lie d e v e n to th o s e th e o r ie s a n d c la im s th a t c o u ld ha ve be e n, butw e r e not , r a i s e d. I n a f ootnot e a tthe e nd of

i t s or de r , how e ve r , the d istrict co u rt in d icated th at itd o u b ted it s s u b ject m atter ju risd icti o n o v erC o h en ’s com pl ai nt , pu rs uantt o the R oo ker- F el dm an do ctri ne. C oh en appeal ed the di stri ct 1 court ’ s order . T h e r e a f te r , W o r ld O m n i f

ile d a m o tio n f

o ra tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s , p u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 4 ( d ) ( s ta tin g th a t ap a r ty m a y c la im e n title m e n t to a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s in6

am o tio n s p e c if

y in g th e s ta tu te , ru le , o ro th e rg r o u n d s e n titlin g th e m o v in g p a r ty to the a w a r d) a nd 42 U . S . C . § 1988( b) ( s t a t i ng tha t , i n a n a c t i on t o e nf or c e § 1983, th e d i stri ctco u rth as d i scret i o n t o aw ard th e p rev ai l i n g p arty reaso n ab l e att o rn eys’ fe es ). S peci fi ca l l y, W orl d O m ni ar gu ed thati tw as the prevai l i ng party a nd that C oh en’ s c om pl ai ntbefore the di stri ctcourtw as fr i vo l ou s, as he previ ou sl y had ra i se d the i ss ue nu m er ou s t i m es w i tho utavai l before the st at e c ou rt s. C oh en re spon ded thathi s § 19 83 com pl ai ntw as no tfr i vo l ou s, as the st at e c ou rt s t o w hi ch he had p re se nt ed hi s c on st i tut i on al defe nse f ai l ed t o add re ss i t . T he di stri ctcourt g r a n te d W o r ld O m n i’s m o tio n f o r§ 1 9 8 8 ( b ) a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s , r e a s o n in g th a t W o r ld O m n i w a s th e p r e v a ilin g p a r ty a n d th a t C o h e n ’s § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t w a s f r iv o lo u s , in th a t h e a lr e a d y h a d r a is e d it r e p e a te d ly . C o h e n s e p a r a te ly ap p e a le d th is o r d e r . I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he i nst antappeal s pre se ntthree i ss ues, nam el y ( 1) w hether the di stri ct c o u r t h a d s u b

je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rC o h e n ’s § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t, p u r s u a n t to th e R o o k e r - F e ld m a n d o c tr in e ; ( 2 ) w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en to n C o h en ’ s § 1 9 8 3 co m p l ai n to n res j u d i cat a g ro u n d s; a nd ( 3) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a w a r di ng § 1988( b) a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s to W o r ld O m n i.

a . R o o k e r - Fe l dm a n D o c t r i ne7

In C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 04 ), w e hel d that “[ f ]e d e r a l c o u r ts a r e o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w he ne ve ri tm a y be l a c ki ng. ” ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on de novo. G oodm a n e x r e l . G oodm a n v. S i pos , 259 F . 3d 13 27 , 13 31 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). T he R ooke r - F e l dm a n doc tr i ne pl a c e s l i m i t s on the s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on o f f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r ts a n d c o u r ts o f ap p e a l o v e rc e r ta in m a tte r s r e la te d to pr e vi ous s t a t e c our tl i t i ga t i on. R ooke r , 263 U . S . a t415- 16, 44 S . C t . a t150; F el dm an, 46 0 U . S . at47 6-82 , 10 3 S . C t . at13 11 -15. S peci fi ca l l y, the R oo kerF e l dm a n doc tr i ne pr ovi de s tha tf e de r a l c our t s , othe rtha n the S upr e m e C our t , ha ve n o a u th o r ity to r e v ie w th e f in a l ju d g m e n ts o f

s ta te c o u r ts . G o o d m a n e x r e l. G oo dm an, 25 9 F . 3d at13 32 . T hi s rul e barri ng fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on i s tri gg er ed w he n “ ( 1) the pa r ty i n f e de r a l c our ti s the s a m e a s the pa r ty i n s t a t e c our t ; ( 2) the pr i ors t a t e c our trul i ng w a s a f i na l orc onc l us i ve j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ; ( 3) the party s ee ki ng re l i ef

i n federa l courthad a rea sonabl e opp ortun i ty t o rai se i t s f eder al cl ai m s i n the st at e c ou rtproceedi ng ; and (4) the i ss ue before the fe dera l courtw as e ith e ra d ju d ic a te d b y th e s ta te c o u r t o rw a s in e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d w ith th e s ta te c our t ’ s j udgm e nt . ” A m os v. G l y nn C ounty B d. of T a x A s s e s s or s , 347 F . 3d 1249, 1 2 6 5 n .1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A f e d e r a l c la im is in e x tr ic ab lyWe remand f or the district cour

t to decide its jurisdiction in the first instance a nd we 2 make no de cision on the matter. We note, however, that we previously have not addresse d whether a litiga nt had a “rea sonable opportunity” to raise his federal c laim when he alleg ed it but the state c ourt failed to address it, but that cer tain of our sister c ircuits have he ld that a litigant did no t ha vea re a so na bleoppo rt

unity fo r Roo ker- F e ldm an pur

po se s tolitig atehisfe deral c laims in state court in this situation. S ee Simes v. Huc kabee , 354 F.3d 823, 828- 30 (8th Cir. 2004) (holdingthat a plaintiff c annot be said to have had a rea sonable opportunity

to raise his fe deral claims in state cour

t when the statecourt previously presented with the same c laims has not “indicate [d that] it[] considere d, reached themerits, and re jected thefederal c laims”); Gulla v. North StrabaneTwp., 146 F .3d 168, 172-73 (3rd Cir. 1998) (holdingthat the Rooker- Fe ldman do c trinedid

no t a pp ly wh en th estatea

pp e llatec ourt

to which a

plaintif f’ s c on stitution al c laims 8 i nt e r tw i ne d w i th as t a t e c our tj udgm e nti f the f e de r a l c l a i m s uc c e e ds onl y t o the e x te n t th a t th e s ta te c o u rt w r o n g ly d e c id e d th e is s u e s b e f o r e it. G o o d m a n e x r e l. G o o d m a n , 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 . E v e n w h e r e th e f e d e r a l c la im is “in e x tr ic ab ly i nt ertw i ned” w i th the st at e c ou rt ’ s j ud gm ent , ho w ever , the fe dera l courtm ay e x e r c is e ju r is d ic tio n if

th e p la in tif

f h a d n o “r e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity to r a is e h is f e d e r a l c la im in s ta te p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . H e r e , a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u g g e s te d in a f o o tn o te th a t it d o u b te d its subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on ov erC oh en’ s c om pl ai nt , i tfa i l ed t o exp l ore the i ss ue, c hoos i ng i ns t e a d t o gr a nts um m a ry j udgm e nton r e s j udi c a t agr ounds . I n doi ng s o, the di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed i t s obl i gat i on t o i nq ui re i nt o i t s s ubj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on. S e e C a de t , 377 F . 3d a t1179; s e e a l s o N a r e y v. D e a n, 32 F . 3d 1521, 1 5 2 4 - 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( in d ic a tin g th a t r e s ju d ic a tais n o t aju r is d ic tio n a l is s u e ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e m a n d C a s e N o . 0 6 - 1 4 9 6 0 to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o n s id e rits s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. 2werepre sente d dismiss e d th eplaintif f’ s a pp e al f or lac k o f s tandingwithout adjudic atingtho se constitutional claims); and Mullins v. S tate of O r., 57 F .3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1995) (holdingthat a plaintiff’ s federal c laims werenot inex tricably intertwined with her

state juvenile c ourt proce eding s beca

use the juvenile c ourt did not, and could not, addre ss those claims). 9 b . D octr i n e of R es Ju d i cata S i nce w e a re vaca t i ng the rul i ng s of the di stri ctcourtand rem andi ng for a consi dera t i on of the qu es t i on of j uri sdi ct i on , w e w i l l no tdeal w i th the rul i ng base d up on re s j ud i ca t a on the m er i t s. H ow ever , shou l d the di stri ctcourtfi nd thati tdo es have j uri sdi ct i on , w e s ug gestthe fol l ow i ng ca se s be r evi ew ed for gui dance: C om m uni ty S t a t e B a nk v. S tr ong, 485 F . 3d 597, 613 n. 21 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( c i t i ng K i z z i r e v. B apt i s tH e a l th S y s . I nc . , 441 F . 3d 1306, 1308 ( 11 C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng th thatw hen w e a re “ as ked t o g i ve re s j ud i ca t a e ff ec tt o a st at e c ou rtj ud gm ent , [w e] m ustappl y the re s j ud i ca t a pri nci pl es of the l aw of the st at e w ho se deci si on i s s et up as a bart o further l i t i gat i on ”) . c. A tt orn ey s F ee s B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tha s notpr ope r l y e xa m i ne d the que s t i on of j ur i s di c t i on i n the f

i r s ti ns t a nc e , the a w a r d of a tt orne y s f

e e s i s va c a t e d. I I I . CONCL US I ON B oth of the s e c a s e s a r e r e m a nde d f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th the opi ni on.10

V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.