Opinion ID: 167719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tal, Inc.'s Condemnation Claim and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Text: 24 Tal, Inc. alleges Appellees violated RICO by engaging in a conspiracy to condemn its property through fraud. The district court held this claim was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a prior state court case had addressed the propriety of the condemnation. 9 Tal, Inc. tries to avoid this result by arguing: (1) the City committed fraud on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals and this fraud creates new grounds for yet another appeal; (2) the Defendants in this case were not the defendants in the prior case; (3) the state condemnation case is still pending; (4) the Oklahoma courts ignored the difference in condemnation powers possessed by municipalities and urban renewal authorities; and (5) the condemned property was sold to the developers far below market value. 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), federal review of state court judgments can be obtained only in the United States Supreme Court. Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir.1998). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes 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 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a party losing in state court . . . from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of [a] state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights. Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). 26 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a lower federal court [both] from considering claims actually decided by a state court, and claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court judgment. Kenmen Eng'g v. City of Union, 314 F.3d 468, 473 (10th Cir.2002) (internal citation and quotations omitted). 10 A claim is inextricably intertwined if the state-court judgment caused, actually and proximately, the injury for which the federal-court plaintiff seeks redress.  Id. at 476. A federal case does not involve an inextricably intertwined state court judgment if the complaint challenges the constitutionality of the state law, so long as the state court did not address it and the plaintiff does not request the federal court to upset the state court judgment. Id. 27 Here, the district court correctly concluded the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded Tal, Inc.'s condemnation claim in federal court. Oklahoma courts squarely considered and rejected Tal, Inc.'s claims that the initial condemnation order had been obtained through fraud on the part of the City, City of Okla. City v. Tal Techs., Inc., and that the property was undervalued. Tal I, 988 P.2d at 905 (The property was appraised on three separate occasions by professional appraisers before it was sold. The trial court found and the record supports that the Urban Renewal Authority received fair market value for the property.). 28 All of Tal, Inc.'s attempts to avoid this result are unavailing. It is true that new allegations of fraud might create grounds for appeal, but that appeal should be brought in the state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). 11 Additionally, Tal, Inc. does not specifically raise new allegations of fraud but only contends the City itself continues to make false claims: [i]n its 9/20/00 response to [Tal, Inc.'s] Appeal, the City filed an Answer Brief which contained numerous other false and/or inaccurate factual representations, including, continuation of its false initial assertion that [Tal, Inc.'s] property was condemned for `public use.' (Corporate Br. at 7 (emphasis added).) Thus, the Oklahoma Civil Court of Appeals was confronted with and reviewed the same fraud as the trial court. Its holding is equally applicable to the fraud alleged at the trial court level (or before the trial court) as it was to the fraud allegedly perpetrated before its very eyes. Moreover, and not withstanding Tal, Inc.'s disagreement, the Oklahoma courts' determination that public use includes economic development does not constitute fraud. See Kelo v. City of New London, ___ U.S. ___, ___ _ ___, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 2665-66, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005) (holding public purpose allows economic development by private parties if the development may lead to new jobs or increased tax revenue). 29 Tal's addition of new defendants in federal court also does not change the nature of the underlying state court ruling which upheld the validity of the condemnation. Lavasek v. White, 339 F.2d 861, 863 (10th Cir.1965). 12 The state condemnation proceeding need not be final in order to serve as grounds for Rooker-Feldman preclusion. Kenmen Eng'g, 314 F.3d at 474. 30 Finally, Tal's challenge to the Renewal Authority's power of condemnation is irrelevant to the present case because the City, not the Renewal Authority, condemned the land. Even if the Oklahoma courts had ignored the allegedly critical differences between the condemnation powers of municipalities and urban renewal authorities, it would not eliminate Rooker-Feldman preclusion. The doctrine would mean nothing if it applied only when federal courts agreed with the state court holding. Tal, Inc. argued its case in the Oklahoma state courts and even raised grounds for post-judgment relief. Its failure in state court does not mean it can now seek to relitigate these issues in federal court. Just the opposite, a loss in state court precludes a second round in federal court. 31