Ferrer v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 1:15-cv-20877

Background

Maria Ferrer (pro se) sued Bayview Loan Servicing LLC and M&T Bank alleging FDCPA, FCCPA, and TCPA violations related to mortgage servicing and debt-collection conduct (repeated calls, failure to validate debt).
Ferrer sent debt-validation requests; she alleges Bayview continued collection efforts, called her cell phone dozens of times, and pursued foreclosure while failing to validate the debt.
Ferrer filed this federal suit while a state-court foreclosure was pending; the federal case was stayed for nearly two years while the state action proceeded.
The state court entered final judgment of foreclosure for Bayview in December 2015; Ferrer’s appeals to the Florida district court, Florida Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court were denied or dismissed.
Defendants moved to dismiss Counts 1 (FDCPA) and 2 (FCCPA) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, arguing Ferrer’s federal claims effectively challenge the state-court foreclosure judgment.
The district court denied the motion, distinguishing claims that challenge debt-collection practices (which can be adjudicated in federal court) from impermissible attempts to obtain appellate review of the state judgment; the court noted issue-preclusion concerns but declined to grant dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rooker–Feldman deprives the district court of jurisdiction over Ferrer’s FDCPA/FCCPA claims	Ferrer contends her claims challenge collection practices (calls, failure to validate), not the state-court judgment, and were filed while the foreclosure was pending	Defendants contend the federal claims are an attempt to relitigate and overturn the state-court determination of the validity of the debt and mortgage, so Rooker–Feldman bars jurisdiction	Denied: Rooker–Feldman does not bar jurisdiction because the asserted FDCPA/FCCPA claims attack collection conduct, not the state judgment; plaintiff filed while state action was pending and did not reasonably have opportunity in state court to litigate these federal collection-practice claims
Whether Ferrer’s challenge to the underlying debt is precluded by the state-court foreclosure judgment	Ferrer argues improper validation and premature foreclosure injured her and prevented reinstatement	Defendants argue Ferrer already litigated and lost challenges to the debt’s validity in state court; she is relitigating the same issues	Court acknowledged issue preclusion likely bars attempts to relitigate the debt’s validity but declined to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; preclusion is a merits defense that must be developed separately
Whether the motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction moots Ferrer’s stay motion	Ferrer had moved to stay proceedings pending resolution of the Rooker–Feldman motion	Defendants sought dismissal; if jurisdictional dismissal denied, stay motion becomes moot	Court denied the stay as moot because it denied the Rooker–Feldman dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final state-court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (clarifies limits on federal court review of state court decisions)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (defines Rooker–Feldman boundary and distinguishes parallel litigation from forbidden appellate review in district court)
Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal claim is "inextricably intertwined" when it succeeds only if the state court wrongly decided the issues)
Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010) (discusses Rooker–Feldman and issue-preclusion principles)
Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (applies Exxon test to delineate Rooker–Feldman scope)
Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rooker–Feldman does not apply if the plaintiff lacked a reasonable opportunity to raise federal claims in state proceedings)
Hollins v. Wessel, 819 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1987) (articulates jurisdictional limitations on federal review of state-court judgments)