UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

) ANTHO NY JER DI

NE, et al. , ) ) Plaintiffs, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-01840 ( PL F) ) FED ERAL

DEPOSI T I

NSURANCE ) CORPORATI ON, et al. , ) ) Def endants. )

)

OPI NI ON This matter is befor e the Court on the de fenda nts’ motions t o dismiss
. For the 1
rea sons discussed in this Opinion, t he motions will be gr anted, a nd this action will be dismis sed with prejudice
. I . BA CKGROUND

Plaintiffs Anthony

and Da rry l J erdine bringthis action ag ainst the Fe dera l Deposit Insuranc e Corporation (“F DI C”) in its capa city as the re ceive r for

Washington Mutual B ank (“WaMu”) , Select Portfolio ServicingInc. (“ SPS ”), a nd DL J Mortg ag e Capital Inc. (“ DL J ”) on claims arising“in Cuy ahog a County , Ohio by virtue of a

mortg ag e loan a

nd related interAlso befor e the Court is the F eder al Deposit Insuranc e Corporation’s Motion t o 1 Strike or Disreg ard Plaintiffs’ N otice of D eposit of Gene ral Servic e Administration Bonds [Dkt. #29]. The motion wil l be g rante d, as the plaintiffs’ Notice is not rele vant to the issues prese nted in this action. Pl aintiffs’ Notice [Dkt. #28] will be stricken.temporal tra nsactions associated there with which conc ern the [p] laintiffs’ primar y residential r eal estate which is located in Peppe r Pike, Ohio 44124[.] ” Compl. ¶ 9.

Plaintiffs secure d mortg ag e fina ncingfrom WaMu. Compl. ¶ 21. At the closing in Febr uary 2005, they

“executed Promissory

Notes and Sec urity

Ag ree ments in favor of

. . . WaMu,” id. , which “r etained a secur ity in [ the] P epper

Pike, Ohio [ proper

ty ].” Id. ¶ 22. F or the first two y ear s, the interest rate was f ix ed; there afte r the rate adjusted a t six -month intervals. Id. ¶ 12. WaMu alleg edly

enter ed into this transaction knowingthat plaintiffs could not repa y the loan and that “ [p] laintiffs likely would be plac ed in a position of def ault, fore closure, a

nd defic iency

judgme nt upon not being a ble to meet their inc rea sed loan oblig ations once the fix ed rate interest per iod expi red a nd the adjustable r ate a

pplied[.] ” Id. ¶ 11(e ). WaMu “assig ned the Note and mor

tga g e to . . . SPS ,” id. ¶ 29, which in turn bundled the loan with others to be sold as a mortg ag e-ba cked se curity
. See id. ¶¶ 11( g ), 30, 108.
A. Forec losure Procee dings On August 23, 2005, W aMu initiated fore closure pr ocee dings in the Court of Common P leas for

Cuy ahog a County , Ohio ag ainst Darr yl J erdine , AL J Holdings G roup, Ltd., and Citibank Fe dera l Savings B ank “a lleg ing br eac h of a pr omissory note for a

2005 mortg ag e
secur ed by

a mortg ag e dee d for Ohio r eal pr operty .” Memora ndum of Points and Authorities in Support of the [FDI C’s] M otion to Dism iss (“F DI C Mem.”) a t 4; see id. , Ex . 1 (Doc ket, W ash. Mut. Bank v . Jerdine , No. CV-05-570626 ( Cuy ahog a County Ohio Ct. Com . Pl. Oct. 23, 2005)) at 13. On F ebrua

ry 12, 2007, a judg e of the Court of Common P leas a dopted a mag istrate’s decision, dec ree d fore closure f or WaMu, and ente red judg ment in WaMu’s favor in the a mount

2of $1,017,663.33 plus interest. Id., Ex . 1 (Journal Entry , W ash. Mut. Bank v . Jerdine , No. CV-05-570626 ( Cuy ahog a County Ohio Ct. Com . Pl. Feb. 12, 2007)) at 7. The c ourt authorized the Sheriff

of Cuy ahog a County

to sell the proper

ty and to dispose of the pr ocee ds of the sale. Id. , Ex . 1(Mag istrate’s De cision, W ash. Mut. Bank v . Jerdine , No. CV-05-570626 (Cuy ahog a County

Ohio Ct. Com . Pl. filed J an. 12, 2007) at 19-20. Dar ryl J erdine twice a

ppeale d this decision. FDI C Mem., Ex . 1 (Doc kets, W ash. Mut. Bank v . Jerdine , No. CA-08-091823 ( Ohio 8th Dist. Ct . App. J uly 18, 2008) and W

ash. Mut. Bank v . Darryl Je rdine , No. 08-091444 (O hio 8th Dist. C t. App. filed May 16, 2008)) at 25-26, 29-30. B oth appea ls were dismiss ed. Id. , Ex . 1 (Journal Entries, W ash. Mut. Bank v

. Darryl Je rdine , No. CA-08-091823 ( Ohio 8th Dist. Ct . App. August 18, 2008), and W ash. Mut. Bank v . Darryl Je rdine , No. CA-08-091444 ( Ohio 8th Dist. Ct . App. filed June 2, 2008)) at 27, 29. B. Challenges to Foreclosure Proc eedings

In October

2007, Anthony

J erdine filed a c ivil action in the United States District Court for the Nor

thern District of O hio ag ainst WaMu, J udg e B ridg et M. McCaff erty , the judg e who pre sided over the fore closure pr ocee dings, a nd Cuy ahog a County

Sheriff G era ld T. McFa

ul, who sold the Pepper Pike pr operty
. SeeFDI C Mem., Ex . 2 (Civil Docket, Jerdinev. W ash. Mut. Bank, No. 07-c v-02984 (N.D . Ohio Oct. 1, 2007)) . SPS and DL J char acte rized the complaint as one to “[q]ui et [t] itle which included a lleg ations of ra ckete eringand alleg ing a private nuisanc e ag ainst [W aMu], Mag istrate McCaf fer ty and the she riff who was to conduc t the sale of the [P epper Pike] [p] roper

ty .” De fs.’ [SL S] and [DL J ] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

3Support of Motion to Dism iss Pl aintiffs’ Complaint (“De fs.’ Mem.” ) at 2-3. Anthony J erdine alleg ed that the Court of Common Pleas of Cuy ahog a County had not bee n cre ated by

law, that the Ohio Revised Code ha d not been e nacte d, that J udg e McCaf fer ty did not properly

hold her position, and that Sheriff McF aul had no a uthority to sell off the Peppe r Pike proper ty , such that the fore closure sa le was void. Complaint, Jerdinev. W ash. Mut. Bank, No. 07-c v-02984 (N.D
. Ohio Oct. 1, 2007). A mong othe r re lief, plaintiff de manded that the district c ourt void the Ohio Court of Common P leas’ January 12, 2007 decision, quiet title in plaintiff’s favor , and enjoin the sale of the Pepper Pike prope rty , which wa s to occur later in the month of Oc tober 2007. See id.

The district cour

t dismi ssed the ac tion sua sponte on the g round that a f eder al district court has no jurisdiction over challeng es to state cour

t decisions. I ts opinion st ated in rele vant par

t: In the prese nt action, plaintiff direc tly attacks a state court’s decision, and the action is clea

rly predic ated on his belief that the state court was mistaken in rende ring its decision agai nst him. Any revie w of plaintiff’s claims would require the court to revie w the specific issues addres sed in the state court proce eding s. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a revie w or grant th e re l i ef as reque sted. In light of the fore g oing, t h i s ac t ion is appropr iately subject to summary

dismiss al. Jerdinev. W

ash. Mut. Bank, No. 1:07-cv- 2984, 2007 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 75288, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2007) ( internal c itations omi tted). In short, “[u] nder . . . the Rooker-F eldman Doc trine, a par ty losing a case in state court is bar

red f rom seekingwhat in substance would be appe llate revie w of the state judgme nt in a United States District Court based on the pa rty ’s claim that the state judg ment itself violates his . . . fede ral rights.” Id. , 2007 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 75288, at *2.

4The Six th Circuit affirme d without opinion. Order, Jerdinev. W ash. Mut. Bank, No. 08-3676 (6th Cir. Fe b. 4, 2010).

In Marc h 2008, Dar

ry l J erdine filed a pe tition for a writ of manda mus in the Court of Appe als of Ohio, Eig hth District, seekingto stay the under lying f

orec losure proc eeding s. FDI C Mem., Ex . 3 (Doc ket, In re Darry l Jerdine , No. CA-08-091172 ( Ohio 8th Dist. Ct . App. Mar. 19, 2008) ) at 2. The court struc k the pleadingbeca use Jerdine “fa iled to establish that he [was] entitled to a writ of manda mus.” In re J

erdine , No. CA-08-091172 , 2008 O hio App. L EXI S 1648, at *5 (Ohio 8th Dist. Ct . App. Apr. 21, 2008)
.

Returningto the Court of Common P leas, Da rry l J erdine filed a ne w civil action ag ainst WaMu and others. F DI C Mem., Ex . 4 (Doc ket, Jerdinev. Sele ct Portfolio Servs. , No. CV-08-668159 (Cuyahog a County Ohio Ct. Com . Pl. Aug. 19, 2008) ). The c ourt dismissed these proc eeding s without prejudice be cause of plaintiff’s f ailure to c omply

with two court order s. Id. , Ex . 4 at 1. Dar ry l J erdine appea led, but the appe al was dismissed on Marc h 20, 2009. Id. , Ex . 4 (Doc ket, Jerdinev. Sele ct Portfolio Servs. , No. CA-09-092890 ( Ohio 8th Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2009)) at 11.

On Fe bruar

y 10, 2009, Anthony

J erdine and Da

rry l J erdine filed a c ivil action in the United States District Court for the Norther n District of Ohio ag ainst the FD I C, W aMu, SL S and DL J . Complaint, Jerdinev. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , No. 1:09-cv- 00307-JG (N.D. Ohio Fe b. 10, 2009). The c ourt dismissed the complaint on the g round that the doc trine of r es 2 judicata ba

rre d Anthony

J erdine ’s “third attempt to collaterally attack the fore closure judgment
The Court conc urs with defe ndants’ asse ssment, seeFDI C Mem. at 6 n.4; Defs.’ 2 Mem. at 4, that the Supplemental Complaint filed in the Norther n District of Ohio is prac tically identical to the complaint filed in the instant civil ac tion. 5issued ag ainst him in t he Cuyahog a County Court of Common P leas.” Memorandum Opinion and Or der, Jerdinev. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , No. 1:09-cv- 00307 (N.D. O hio J une 18, 2009) at 4. The Jerdines appe aled the de cision to the Six th Circuit. Notice of Appe al, Jerdinev. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , No. 1:09-cv- 00307 (N.D. O hio J une 18, 2009). The appea l subsequently was dismiss ed for

want of pr osecution, that is, for f ailure to pa

y the filingfee within the time period set by the Circuit. Orde r, Jerdinev. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , No. 09-3955 (6th Cir. Jul y 14, 2010). On Marc h 23, 2009, Anthony J erdine and Da

rry l J erdine filed y et another complaint in the Court of Common P leas a g ainst the FD I C. FDI C Mem., Ex . 6 (Doc ket, Case No. CV-09-688130 ( Cuy ahog a County Ohio Ct. Com . Pl. Mar. 23, 2009) at 6. The matter wa s dismiss ed on Jul y

30, 2009 beca

use plaintiffs had not a

ppear ed for

a pre -trial conf

ere nce. See id. at 2. There afte r, Anthony J erdine and Da

rry l J erdine filed a c ivil action ag ainst the FDI C in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington . Complaint, Jerdinev. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , No. 09-c v-01596 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2009). As of the date of this Opinion, this civil action is still pending
. C. Administrat ive Claims to the FDIC The F DI C became WaMu’s rec eiver on September 25, 2008. I n Dec ember

2008, plaintiffs submitted two administ rative c laims to the FDI C. FDI C Mem., Ex . 8 (Proof of Claim) at 1-2. B y

letters of notice dated June 22, 2009, the FD I C notified plaintiffs of the disallowanc e of their c laims. Id. , Ex . 8 (Notice s of Disallowanc e of Claims) at 3- 4. In neither instanc e did

6plaintiffs provide f actua l alleg ations or proof to support their claims. See id. The F DI C notices included the f

ollowing state ment: Pursuant to [12 U.S.C. § 1 8 2 1 (d)(6)], if y ou do not agree with this disallowance , y ou have the rig ht to file a lawsuit on y our claim
. . . in t h e Un i t ed States District
. . . Court within which the failed institution’s principal place of business wa s l o cate d or the United States District Court for the District of Columbi a within 60 day s from the date of

this noti ce. IF YOU DO NOT F ILE A LAWSUIT . . . BEFORE THE E ND OF THE 60-DAY P ERIOD, THE DISALLO WANCE WILL BE FI NA L, YOUR CLAIM WILL BE F OREVER BARRED AND YOU WILL HAVE NO F URTHE R RIG HTS OR REMEDIES WITH RES P ECT TO YOUR CLAIM. Id. , Ex . 8 at 8 (e mphasis in origina l); see id. , Ex . 8 at 9.
D. Civil Action No. 09-1840 The Clerk of

this Court receive d plaintiffs’ complaint on August 31, 2009, evidenc ed by

the date stamp on the first pag e of the orig inal pleading . On that date the Clerk also
rec eived Anthony

J erdine ’s application to procee d in forma pauperis . The Clerk pr ovisionally filed these items on the Court’s e lectronic docket on Septembe r 28, 2009, pending rec eipt of a
cer tified copy

of Anthony

J erdine ’s trust fund ac count statement. The a pplication permitting 3 plaintiffs to proce ed in forma pauperis was a pproved on N ovember

3, 2009.

Anthony J erdine was inca

rce rate d at the time plaintiffs filed their complaint. As a 3 prisoner, he was re quired to submit a cer tified copy

of his trust fund ac count statement (or institutional equivalent), inc luding the suppor ting ledg er she ets, for the six -month period immediately

prec edingthe filingof this complaint, obtained from the a ppropriate officia l of ea ch prison at which plaintiff is or w as conf ined. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court approve d his application to proc eed in forma pauperis on revie w of his trust fund ac count statement. Da rryl J erdine did not submi t a sepa rate application to proc eed in forma pauperis
.

7Gene rally , plaintiffs alleg e that def endants have violated the H ome Owne rship Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. ; the Real Estate Settlement Proce dures Ac t, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ; the Truth in L endingAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq .; the Fa ir Credit ReportingAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ; and var ious provisions of Ohio law. Plaintiffs also
asser t common law tort claims of fr audulent misrepr esentation, breac h of fiducia ry duty , unjust enric hment, and civil conspira cy . Amongother re lief, plaintiffs dema nd a dec laratory

judgme nt rende ringthe mortg ag e loan tra nsaction void and findingthat WaMu lacked standingto bringthe underlying f

orec losure ac tion, in addition t o an aw ard of $27.4 milli on in damag es.
I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Lack of Subjec t Matter Jurisdiction Under FIRREA The F DI C moves to dism iss the complaint under Rule 12(b) (1) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil P roce dure on the g round that the Court lac ks subject matter jurisdiction. “F eder al courts ar e cour

ts of limit ed jurisdiction . . . [and it] is to be presumed that a ca use lies outside this limit ed jurisdiction.” Kokkone n v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). I t is plainti ffs’ bur den to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defende rs of W

ildlif e , 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). In rulingon a motion under Rule 12(b) (1), the Court “must acc ept as true all materia l alleg ations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of

the complainingparty .” W arth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). Under the Fina ncial Institut ions Reform, Recove ry and Enfor ceme nt Act (“F I RREA”), see12 U.S.C. § 1821(d), the Dire ctor of the Offic e of Thr ift Supervision may appoint a re ceive r “f

or the purpose of liquidation or winding up a ny saving s association’s

8aff

airs.” 12 U .S.C. § 1821(d)(6). In its capac ity as WaMu’s re ceive r, the F DI C is obli g ated to “publish a notice to the de pository institution’s cre ditors to present their c laims, toge ther with proof, to the r ece iver by

a date specifie d in the notice.” 12 U .S.C. § 1821(d)(3)(B ). Unde r FI RREA, the FDI C is authoriz ed “a fter the decla ration of a

n institution’s insolvency , [t o] settl e all uninsured and unse cure d claims on the re ceive rship with a final settlement pa y ment which shall constitute full pay

ment and disposition of the [FDI C’s] obl iga tions to such claimants.” 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(4)( B) (i); see City of New Y ork v. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp. , 40 F. Supp. 2d 153, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 1999 ) ( descr ibing F DI C’s claims proce ss). The F DI C is obli g ated to make its decision to allow or disallow a claim within 180 day s of its rece ipt, 12 U.S.C . § 1821(d)( 5)(A) (i), unless the FD I C and the cla imant ag ree in writing to e x tend this tim e per iod, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)( 5)(A) (ii). I f it disallows a claim, the F DI C must provide written notice of the disallowance , 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5), a fter which a c laimant may seek e ither administrative revie w of the disallowa

nce or judicial revie w, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6) (A). T here is a 60-day period within which a

claimant must file a c ivil action in a fede ral district cour t; if he “fa ils to . . . file suit on such claim . . . bef ore the end of the 60-day

period . . ., the c laim shall be dee med to be disallowed. [As] of the end of suc h period, such disa llowance shall be final, a nd the claimant shall have no f

urther r ights or r emedies w ith respec t to such claim.” 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)( 6)(B ). The F DI C argues that plaintiffs’ c omplaint mustbe dismissed for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction bec ause the pleadingwas not timely filed. F DI C Mem. at 8-10. Ac cordingto the FD I C, plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 28, 2009, “more than 90 day s after the FDI C-Rece iver’s le tter disallowingtheir administrative c laims,” id. at 10, and, ther efor e, plaintiffs “have no fur

ther rights or reme dies as to any claim ag ainst WaMu.” Id.
9On J une 2, 2009, the F DI C requeste d an extension until Dec ember 17, 2009 to make its deter

mination on plaintiffs’ administrative claim. Memora ndum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Oppose Dismiss al (“ Pls.’ Opp’n to FDI C Mot.”), Ex. A (Request for E x tension) at 1. Plaintiffs argue that they “had until Dec ember

17, 2009” to file their c omplaint in a fede ral district cour t beca use the F DI C requeste d, and plaintiffs ag ree d to, an extension of the 180-day period within which a

decision on the c laim was to be made. Pls.’ Opp’n to F DI C Mot. at 2. Pl aintiffs appa rently consider the FDI C’s ext ended deadline, D ece mber 17, 2009, a s the filing de adline for this lawsuit. Their position i s untenable. By consentingto the FDI C’s reque st for an e x tension of time for the r ece iver to allow or disallow plaintiffs’ c laims, plaintiffs agree d to the followingprovision:

I f you ag ree to the reque sted extension of time, y our statutory rig hts will r emain in f

ull f orce , including the rig ht to file a lawsuit on y our claim during the 60-day period beg inning on the earlier of (1) the expiration of the Ex tended Deter mination Date; or (2) the d at e t h e claim is disallowed by

the Rece iver, if it is disallowed. Id. , Ex . A at 1 (e mphasis in origina l). By virtue of this extension the FDI C had until Dec ember

17, 2009 to make its determination, but the F DI C in fact made its decision denying plaintiffs’ cla ims on J une 22, 2009. The 60-day period within which plaintiffs we re r equire d to file a c ivil action theref

ore be g an to run on June 22, 2009, the date of the FD I C’s written notice of the de nial of their c laims. It ended sixt y day s later on or

about August 21, 2009. Base d on the Clerk’s “r ece ived” stamp on the or igina l pleading , plaintiffs’ complaint wa s deeme d filed on August 31, 2009, 70 day s after the date on which the F DI C disallowed their cla ims. P laintiffs’ complaint there fore was untimely
.

10Be cause plaintiffs did not file their lawsuit within six ty day s as re quired by Congr ess under

the FI RREA, the FDI C’s determination is final and not r eviewa ble by this Court. See Hanson v. Fe d. Deposit Ins. Corp ., 113 F.3d 866, 869- 70 (8th Cir. 1997) (“ [T] he fa ilure of a claimant to satisfy

the re quirements of § 1821( d)(6) (B ) within the presc ribed time per iod bars the claimant fr om seekingjudicial revie w of his claim.”) ; Fed. De posit Ins. Corp. v. Shain, Schaffer &Rafanello , 944 F.2d 129, 132 ( 3d Cir. 1991) ( “Congress e x pressly withdrew jurisdiction fr om all courts over

any claim to a fa iled bank’s a ssets that are made outside the pr ocedur e set for th in section 1821.”) ; Jette v . Orange County Fin., Inc

. , No. 2:08-CV-1767-G EB- EFB , 2009 WL 5029563, at *3 (E.D. Ca l. Dec. 15, 2009) (conc luding that “ Plaintiffs’ failure to act within the six ty day statutory time period is fata l to their [Truth in L endingAct ] claim ag ainst the FD I C”); Judd v. R esolution Trus t Corp ., No. 95-1074, 1997 WL678171, at *17 (D.D .C. Oct. 22, 1997) (Mag istrate Judge r ecommenda tion to dis miss claims ag ainst rec eiver beca use plaintiffs “de lay ed
over one y ear

past the . . . statutory

deadline f

or filingan ac tion”); Arends v. Eurobank and Trust Co. , 845 F. Supp. 60, 64 (D.P.R. 1994) (dismissing c laims of plaintiffs who fa iled to file suit within the 60-day

period); Freem an v. Re

solution T

rust Corp ., No. C-93-4215-V RW , 1994 WL 398515, at *3 (N.D . Cal. J uly 20, 1994) (“ The c ourt has no jurisdiction over c laims filed outside of the 60-da

y statute of limitations m andate d by § 1821(d)( 6)(B ).”)
. B. Lack of Subjec t Matter Jurisdiction Under Rooke r-Feldman D octrine “The Rooke r-Feldman doctrine pr events lowe r fe dera l courts from he aringcase s that amount to the functional e quivalent of a n appea l from a state court” beca use they are without jurisdiction to do so. Gray v . Poole , 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 ( D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing District of

11Columbia Cour t of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooke r v. Fiduciary Trust Co. ,

263 U.S. 413 (1923)); see Ex xon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 208 (2005) ( “The Rooke r-Feldman doctrine . . . is conf ined to case s of the kind from whic h the doctrine a cquire d its name: case s broug ht by state-c ourt losers complainingof injuries ca used by state-c ourt judg ments rende red be fore the district court proc eeding s commence d and inviting district court re view and r ejec tion of those judgme nts.”).

In this case, it is appar ent that plaintiffs, y et ag ain, ask a fede ral c ourt to overturn the Ohio cour

ts’ ruling s with respec t to the forec losure proc eeding s and thus to ree stablish their leg al rig hts with respec t to the Pepper Pike prope rty . Notwithstanding pla intiffs’ alleg ations of violations of fede ral law , the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine I s jurisdictional, see Stanton v. D istrict of Columbia Court of Appeals , 127 F.3d 72, 75 ( D.C. Cir. 1997), and “a party losing in state court is bar

red f rom seekingwhat in substance would be appe llate re view of the state judg ment in a United States district court, ba sed on the losingparty ’s claim that the state judgme nt itself violates the loser’ s fede ral rights.” Johnson v. D eGrandy , 513 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Under the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine, D arr yl J erdine as the loser

in the fore closure pr ocee ding c annot seek r eview of

the Ohio judg ment in this federa l lawsuit. See Hunter v. U .S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n , No. 09-1205, 2010 WL1037945, at *5 (D.D .C. Mar. 22, 2010) ( findingthat plaintiff who lost fore closure a ction broug ht ag ainst him in st ate c ourt and subseque ntly filed fe dera l lawsuit to contest validity

of that judg ment fell within ambit of the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine) ; see also Broome v . Sharonview Fed. Credit Union , No. 3:10CV192-RJ C-DSC, 2010 W L2342453, at *2 (W.D.N.C. J une 8, 2010) ( Mag istrate Judge’ s rec ommendation to dismi ss action involving

12fore closure of deed of trust and execution of writ of posse ssion issued by state cour

t under Rooke r-Feldman doctrine)
. I I I . CONCLUSI ON

The Court conc ludes that plaintiffs’ c laims ag ainst the FD I C are ba rre d by operation of 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6), a nd that their cla ims ag ainst all defe ndants are barr ed under the Rooke r-Feldman doctrine. A ccor dingly , defe ndants’ motions to dism iss will be gr anted a nd plaintiffs’ summary

judgme nt motion wil l be denied. An appropr iate Or der a ccompa nies this Opinion.
/s/______________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: August 13, 2010

13