952 F.3d 32
2d Cir.2020Background:
- Edwards (pro se) borrowed from McMillen and alleged the lender issued a commercial loan instead of a residential one, asserting fraud, TILA, CUTPA, negligence, and related claims.
- In Connecticut Superior Court Edwards filed multiple amended and “substitute” complaints; earlier iterations were stricken as legally insufficient or time‑barred.
- The operative (final) substitute complaint asserted TILA, CUTPA, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; the state court entered judgment dismissing the action for failure to prosecute under Conn. Practice Book § 14‑3.
- Edwards then filed the same claims in federal district court; McMillen moved to dismiss arguing Rooker‑Feldman, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and statute‑of‑limitations defenses.
- The district court dismissed under Rooker‑Feldman; on appeal the Second Circuit held that because the operative state dismissal was for failure to prosecute (not on the merits) and Connecticut law treats prior pleadings as nullities, Edwards had not “lost” in the sense required for Rooker‑Feldman.
- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, leaving other defenses (e.g., res judicata) for the district court to consider in the first instance.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker‑Feldman bars the federal suit | Edwards: He did not "lose"—state dismissal was for failure to prosecute, not a merits judgment | McMillen: Federal suit is effectively an appeal of adverse state rulings; Rooker‑Feldman deprives district court jurisdiction | Rooker‑Feldman does not apply because the operative state dismissal was for failure to prosecute (no merits adjudication) and prior pleadings were nullities under Connecticut law |
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation | Not advanced on appeal | McMillen: Prior state proceedings preclude federal relitigation | Court did not decide on appeal; indicated res judicata likely inapplicable because dismissal was not on the merits and remanded for district court to address any such defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (clarified Rooker principle and limits on federal review of state court decisions)
- Sung Cho v. City of New York, 910 F.3d 639 (2d Cir. 2018) (articulated four‑part Rooker‑Feldman test)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussed scope of Rooker‑Feldman)
- Lund v. Milford Hosp., Inc., 168 A.3d 479 (Conn. 2017) (amended pleading waives or replaces the original pleading)
- Royce v. Town of Westport, 439 A.2d 298 (Conn. 1981) (replacing a complaint avoids an adverse judgment on the original pleading)
- Milgrim v. Deluca, 487 A.2d 522 (Conn. 1985) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is not a merits disposition)
- Legassey v. Shulansky, 611 A.2d 930 (Conn. App. 1992) (same: failure to prosecute is not a merits determination)
- Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Nudell, 363 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2004) (Rooker‑Feldman inapplicable when state decision did not decide merits)
- Whiteford v. Reed, 155 F.3d 671 (3d Cir. 1998) (similar conclusion where state court did not decide merits)