Opinion ID: 204001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Such other relief as the Court deems just and

Text: appropriate. In order for the district court to grant the Silvas this relief that they requested, the district court would have “to declare that the state court wrongly decided [the Silvas’] claim” in the state foreclosure action. Davison, 471 F.3d at 223. And “[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents [the district court] from doing this.” Id. This bar applies notwithstanding that the Silvas are asserting in their federal action a federal constitutional claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Diva’s Inc. v. City of Bangor, 411 F.3d 30, 42-43 (1st Cir. 2005) (applying Rooker-Feldman doctrine to § 1983 action, but concluding that doctrine did not deprive the federal district court of subject-matter jurisdiction in that particular case). The Silvas contend that their second federal action seeks different relief than that sought in the state-court foreclosure proceedings because, in federal court, they are challenging the constitutionality of the Massachusetts foreclosure-by-entry statute. It may be true that, “if the plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation by an adverse party independent of the injury caused by the state court judgment, the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine does not bar - 14 - jurisdiction.” Davison, 471 F.3d at 222 (emphasis added). But here, the Silvas themselves alleged in their federal complaint that they “raised the federal constitutional due process issue under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments at every level of the Massachusetts state courts.” Thus, the Silvas’ federal claim challenging the constitutionality of the Massachusetts foreclosure-by-entry statute is not “independent of the injury caused by the state court judgment.” Davison, 471 F.3d at 222. The Silvas counter that the state courts never addressed the merits of their due process argument. But we cannot agree. Both the Land Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed and rejected the Silvas’ due process argument. The Massachusetts Land Court rejected the Silvas’ due process argument by concluding that the recorded certificate of entry was “adequate and proper notice, and the Silvas cannot credibly claim that it violates due process.” This conclusion was upheld by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which noted that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court previously ruled that the duly recorded entry under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, § 2 provided “full and authoritative notice, to all persons,” citing, e.g., Bennett v. Conant, 10 Cush. 163, 167 (Mass. 1852). Pellegrini, 2007 WL 3333247, - 15 - at . Full and authoritative notice to all persons would satisfy due process notice requirements and, accordingly, the Massachusetts Appeals Court apparently felt it was not necessary in this case to address whether or not the due process clause was even applicable because of the possibility that a foreclosure by entry and recorded notice might not involve state action: “this case presents no ‘occasion to determine whether the due process clause even has any applicability to nonjudicial mortgage foreclosures.’” Id. at  (quoting Beaton, 326 N.E.2d at 307 n.6). Thus, the Massachusetts courts expressly rejected the Silvas’ due process claim. Moreover, even if we were to assume the truth of the Silvas’ allegation that, although they “raised the federal constitutional due process issue under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments at every level of the Massachusetts state courts,” the state “courts chose not to address the constitutional questions,” we would still conclude that Rooker-Feldman bars the Silvas’ second federal action. This court could not grant the Silvas the relief they request without concluding that the Massachusetts state courts erred in the decisions entered in the state foreclosure proceedings. Cf. Davison, 471 F.3d at 223 (applying Rooker-Feldman doctrine after rejecting federal plaintiffs’ - 16 - argument that they never got their “day in [state] court” because of state court’s procedural ruling). The ruling of the Massachusetts Appeals Court expressly rejected the Silvas’ due process claim and no federal relief could be granted without challenging that state court holding. d. Conclusion as to the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine For all of the foregoing reasons, the district court did not err in dismissing the Silvas’ second federal action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Preclusion principles provide an alternate reason to affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the Silvas’ second federal action Even if the district court erred in dismissing the Silvas’ second federal action based upon Rooker-Feldman principles, which we do not conclude, dismissal was, in any event, appropriate under preclusion principles. See Aguilar v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div., 510 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007) (noting that an appellate court can affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “on any ground made apparent by the record (whether or not relied upon by the lower court)”); see also SBT Holdings, LLC v. Town of Westminster, 547 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that appellate court can “affirm a judgment of dismissal on any independently - 17 - sufficient ground”) (quotation omitted); Hernandez-Santiago v. Ecolab, Inc., 397 F.3d 30, 34 (1st Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting that appellate court “could still affirm if dismissal of the complaint would be the obvious result of a remand”). “Under the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a judgment rendered in a state court is entitled to the same preclusive effect in federal court as it would be given within the state in which it was rendered.” Giragosian v. Ryan, 547 F.3d 59, 63 (1st Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2020 (2009). Here, because the state foreclosure proceeding occurred in Massachusetts courts, we will look to Massachusetts preclusion principles. “Massachusetts recognizes two distinct types of preclusion arising out of the maintenance of prior litigation: res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion).” Andrew Robinson Int’l, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 547 F.3d 48, 52 (1st Cir. 2008). Both apply here.
Silvas’ federal claims against Pellegrini Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “prevents the relitigation of all claims that a litigant had the opportunity and incentive to fully litigate in an earlier action.” Giragosian, 547 F.3d at 63 (quotation, alterations - 18 - omitted) (applying Massachusetts law). Under Massachusetts law, “[t]he operation of res judicata requires the presence of three elements: (1) the identity or privity of the parties to the present and prior actions, (2) identity of the cause of action, and (3) prior final judgment on the merits.” Andrews Robinson, 547 F.3d at 52 (quotation omitted). Those three elements are present here. First, the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against Pellegrini involve the same parties as were involved in the state foreclosure proceeding. Second, “Massachusetts deems causes of action identical for claim preclusion purposes if they grow out of the same transaction, act, or agreement, and seek redress for the same wrong.” Id. (quotation, alterations omitted). “Discrete theories of liability may constitute identical causes of action for claim preclusion purposes if they are based upon the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id. (applying Massachusetts law). “Facts forming a common nucleus are those meeting the following criteria: 1) whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation; 2) whether the facts form a convenient trial unit; and 3) whether treating the facts as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations.” Herman v. Meiselman, 541 F.3d 59, - 19 - 62-63 & 62 n.6 (1st Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted) (applying federal and Massachusetts preclusion principles, which the court noted were the same). It is clear that the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against Pellegrini in the second federal action stem from the same nucleus of operative facts as the claims at issue in the state foreclosure action — P e l l e g r ini’s use of Massachusetts’ foreclosure-by-entry mechanism to take clear title to the house at 24 Clifford Lane. Lastly, as previously discussed, the state foreclosure action is final. And the state courts’ resolution of those proceedings was based upon the merits of the issues presented. b. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against the Commonwealth in the Silvas’ second federal action The Massachusetts courts use several formulations interchangeably to describe the prerequisites for issue preclusion, but the Supreme Judicial Court recently stated that issue preclusion applies when (1) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication; (2) the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a party (or in privity with a party) to the prior adjudication; and (3) the issue in the prior adjudication was identical to the issue in the current adjudication. Additionally, [4] the issue decided in the prior adjudication must have been essential to the earlier judgment. Massachusetts courts also require that [5] appellate review must have been available in the earlier case before issue preclusion will arise. - 20 - Pisnoy v. Ahmed (In re Sonus Networks, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litig.), 499 F.3d 47, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (quotations, citations omitted) (several numbers added). Those elements are met here as to the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against the Commonwealth in the second federal action. First, as previously explained, there was a final adjudication on the merits in the state foreclosure proceeding. Second, clearly the parties against whom the Commonwealth seeks to assert the prior state adjudication — the Silvas — were parties to that prior state proceeding. Third, “[i]ssue preclusion prevents relitigation of the same issues actually litigated in [the] earlier judgment.” Id. at 62. “The question is whether there is anything in the” Silvas’ second federal action “that amounts to a significant change . . . from what was presented to the state court.” Id. (quotation omitted.) There was not. Fourth, the relevant issues adjudicated in the state foreclosure proceeding — whether Pellegrini failed to give the Silvas adequate notice of her foreclosure by entry, and whether Pellegrini’s use of that state non-judicial foreclosure mechanism deprived the Silvas of their property - 21 - without due process — was essential to the state courts’ decisions upholding Pellegrini’s foreclosure by entry. Lastly, appellate review was available and pursued by the Silvas in the state foreclosure proceeding. For these reasons, Massachusetts’ collateral estoppel or issue preclusion principles bar the Silvas from pursuing the claims they assert in their second federal action against the Commonwealth. c. Conclusion as to preclusion As an alternative to dismissal on the basis of Rooker-Feldman, we conclude, for the foregoing reasons, that dismissal was appropriate based on preclusion principles.