FLATAU v. SHERMAN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC
5:14-cv-00245
M.D. Ga.Dec 14, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs allege a coordinated debt-collection enterprise operated by Sherman Defendants, LVNV, Resurgent, Arrow, Atlas, and related entities.
- Suit concerns a Houston County state-court default judgment against Calvin Davis for a debt Plaintiffs claim he did not owe.
- Davis allegedly was improperly served, with service and judgment later used to garnish his wages in Fayette County.
- Atlas filed a bankruptcy proof of claim seeking to collect the same debt, tying into the state-court judgment.
- Plaintiffs amended to add Arrow and challenge the debt, service, and related garnishments; case then addressed Rooker-Feldman and related preclusion issues.
- Court ultimately granted motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, staying Arrow’s fate for potential supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the claims | Plaintiffs contend Davis not properly served; claims independent of state judgment. | Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgment; plaintiffs challenge the judgment itself. | Rooker-Feldman barred, including FDCPA/GA RICO/GFBPA claims linked to the judgment. |
| Whether Davis was a party to the state action | Davis not properly served, thus not a state-court loser. | Faulty service does not avoid Rooker-Feldman; Davis could have raised it in state court. | Does not defeat Rooker-Feldman; Davis’s status does not permit federal review. |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are independent of the state judgment | Claims flow from later conduct and are not an attack on the judgment. | Substance remains a challenge to the state judgment; cannot proceed. | Claims are inextricably intertwined; barred under Rooker-Feldman. |
| Whether preclusion law or other theories salvage the claims | Preclusion via O.C.G.A. §9-11-60(a) collateral attack should apply. | Preclusion cannot override Rooker-Feldman here; theories without merit. | Preclusion does not save claims; Rooker-Feldman applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., Ltd., 692 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman framework; inextricably intertwined standard)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 2005) (defines Rooker-Feldman scope and limits)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (Supreme Court 2006) (limits Rooker-Feldman applicability to state-court losers)
- Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (state-court judgments; authority to assess jurisdictional bar)
- Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2001) (inextricably intertwined; review limitations on federal relief)
- Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009) (test for inextricably intertwined claims; state judgment effects)
- In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) (voidable or void judgments; limitations on collateral attacks)
- In re James, 940 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1991) (void ab initio / exceptions discussed; bankruptcy context)
- Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc., 477 F. App’x 558 (11th Cir. 2012) (collateral review of judgments; related to Rooker-Feldman)
- Franklin v. Arbor Station, LLC, 549 F. App’x 831 (11th Cir. 2013) (illustrates limitations of reviewing state judgments under Rooker-Feldman)