Court Opinion

ID: 9382207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 00:00:22.072193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.790236
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50111        Document: 00516689009             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/24/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50111
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                           March 24, 2023
   Kent Graham; Colette Savage,                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Mark Savage; Michael McDonald; Vijay Mehta; Thomas
   Gray, 10th Court of Appeal; Rex Davis, 10th Court of
   Appeal; Lee Harris, Judge 66th Hill District Court,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:21-CV-151

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         The facts underlying the original state court suit are complicated, but
   in essence this case involves a family feud over an inheritance. The Savages
   left a trust to their two children—Mark and Colette. After a few twists and
   turns, Colette ended up in debt to Mark after he defended his half-brother’s
   probate litigation on Colette’s behalf. In an attempt to repay Mark, Colette

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50111      Document: 00516689009         Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/24/2023

   signed a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust on six tracts of land.
   Colette made a few payments, but eventually defaulted. Thereafter, Mark
   initiated foreclosure proceedings on three of the six properties.
          Colette has since filed multiple lawsuits in state court, as well as
   lawsuits in at least two federal district courts challenging this promissory
   note, deed of trust, and foreclosure. Both federal lawsuits challenge various
   state court orders and seek relief from state court judgments.
          The Northern District of California found that, at its core, Colette’s
   lawsuit “amounts to a forbidden de facto appeal of state court decisions that
   entered judgment against her in Defendant’s favor regarding a promissory
   note she executed in Texas.” The district court concluded that such a
   lawsuit was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Western District
   of Texas agreed and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter
   jurisdiction.
          The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal courts of subject matter
   jurisdiction in “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, 284 (2005). The district court properly dismissed Colette’s claims, as
   they are inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment and
   proceedings regarding this note, deed of trust, and foreclosure, so her lawsuit
   is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.