Opinion ID: 1192058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Four Requirements of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Text: Underlying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the principle, expressed by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 1257, that within the federal judicial system, only the Supreme Court may review state-court decisions. Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85. There was a time when this Circuit applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine expansively, viewing it as effectively coextensive with [the] doctrines of claim and issue preclusion. Id. at 84 (citing Moccio v. N.Y. State Office of Court Admin., 95 F.3d 195, 199-200 (2d Cir.1996)). At that time, we held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied both to final state court judgments and to interlocutory state court orders. See Campbell v. Greisberger, 80 F.3d 703, 707 (2d Cir.1996) (It cannot be the meaning of Rooker-Feldman that, while the inferior federal courts are barred from reviewing final decisions of state courts, they are free to review interlocutory orders.). Much of our prior case law, however, was abrogated by Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). See Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85 (noting that Exxon Mobil overturned this Circuit's Rooker-Feldman standard). Cautioning that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is meant to occupy narrow ground, the Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil held that the doctrine is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. In the wake of Exxon Mobil, we revisited our prior precedents and held that there are four requirements that must be met before the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies: First, the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court. Second, the plaintiff must complain[] of injuries caused by [a] state-court judgment[.] Third, the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of [that] judgment[]. Fourth, the state-court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commencedi.e., Rooker-Feldman has no application to federal-court suits proceeding in parallel with ongoing state-court litigation. Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85 (alterations in original) (quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517). We noted that the first and fourth requirements may be loosely termed procedural, while the second and third requirements may be termed substantive. Id.