Bartholomew v. Lakeview Loan Services LLC
4:17-cv-01084
S.D. Tex.Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jason Paris Bartholomew filed suit to stop foreclosure and eviction from real property he inherited, asserting a "land patent" gave him superior title.
- Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to block an imminent eviction; the court denied that request on April 10, 2017, finding unlikely success on the merits.
- The magistrate judge directed Plaintiff to show federal subject-matter jurisdiction, citing potential preclusion by federal abstention and Rooker–Feldman principles.
- Plaintiff moved for default judgment; Defendant Lakeview Loan Services moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction/mootness and failure to state a claim.
- The magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff’s federal claims were an impermissible collateral attack on state-court foreclosure/eviction judgments and recommended dismissal of the case and denial of the default-judgment motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction to hear claims attacking state foreclosure/eviction judgments | Bartholomew contends his "land patent" and related federal claims permit federal review and relief against foreclosure/eviction | Lakeview argues the action is a collateral attack on final state-court judgments and is barred by Rooker–Feldman (and thus moot/no jurisdiction) | Court held Rooker–Feldman bars federal review; court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissal is recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (establishing that federal district courts cannot review final state-court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (confirming limits on federal review of state-court decisions)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (principles of abstention from interfering in ongoing state proceedings)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (limiting Rooker–Feldman to cases brought by state-court losers seeking review of state judgments)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing it exists)
- Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315 (federal courts may not entertain suits that are direct attacks on state-court judgments)
- Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367 (describing when issues are "inextricably intertwined" with state judgments and thus barred)
- Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912 (jurisdictional principles and burden of proof on party invoking federal jurisdiction)