Embassy Realty Investment, LLC v. City of Cleveland, 877 F. Supp. 2d 564

Embassy Realty Investments bought the disputed Cleveland property from Barnes, who previously acquired it from the Church; Barnes is an Embassy shareholder.
A 1998 City of Cleveland notice condemned the property for housing violations and the notice was served on the Church with appeal rights.
Plaintiffs allege the 1998 notice was defective and the City took no action through 2007, resulting in Barnes’s title search missing the condemned status.
In 2007 Barnes pursued permits; a 2007 building permit was issued then revoked due to the 1998 notice; Captain Buffalo Foods was contracted to remodel and operate a coffeehouse.
In 2007–2009, the City denied permits, issued stop-work orders, and hearings occurred before the local Building Standards and Building Appeals (BBS/BA); Captain Buffalo was criminally fined $25,000 in 2007 for a building code violation.
In 2009 the City demolished the building despite ongoing appeals, and in 2011 Embassy, Barnes, and Captain Buffalo filed suit alleging constitutional violations and a Monell claim against the City.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar	Embassy argues no bar because injury stems from third-party actions, not state judgments.	Defendants contend the relief seeks review of state judgments, barred by Rooker-Feldman.	Rooker-Feldman does not bar where injury source is independent of state orders.
Heck v. Humphrey applicability	Cap. Buffalo’s fine does not bar §1983 claims since no custody/habeas issue.	Defendants argue Heck bars §1983 claims arising from criminal convictions.	Heck does not bar the claims; Buffalo was not in custody and habeas review was unavailable.
Absolute immunity for Denk	Denk participated in the administrative appeal and should face §1983 liability.	Denk acted in a quasi-judicial capacity during the local BBS/BA appeal and is absolutely immune.	Denk is absolutely immune for participation in the administrative appeal; immunity extends to that conduct but not necessarily to all alleged actions.
Scope of dismissal and striking attached documents	Pls seek to strike or convert to summary judgment to permit discovery.	Documents are central/public records integral to claims; may be considered without conversion.	Ruling: court may consider attached documents; motion to strike/convert denied.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman source-of-injury doctrine framework)
Kovacic v. Cuy. County Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 606 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2010) (source-of-injury approach to Rooker-Feldman)
Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2008) (source-of-injury standard applied to Rooker-Feldman)
McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing independent claims from state-judgment-injury)
Powers v. Hamilton County Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007) ( Heck-related analysis for monetary penalties without custody)
Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2006) (no jurisdictional bar where injury arose from third-party conduct)
Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 2006) (adversarial nature and writings as part of quasi-judicial immunity factors)
Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage, 804 F.Supp.2d 697 (N.D.Ill. 2011) (supports quasi-judicial immunity analysis for board members)
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1988) (foundation for functional approach to immunity)
Heyde v. Pittenger, 633 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2011) (immunity considerations and quasi-judicial function)