435 F. App'x 530
7th Cir.2011Background
- After his brother's death, Germaine filed a suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin challenging his brother's Florida divorce and alleging wrongful death by various defendants.
- The district court sua sponte transferred the case to the Western District of Wisconsin because Germaine resided there and none of the defendants had ties to the Eastern District.
- Judge Crabb granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, invoking the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and standing concerns.
- Germaine appeals, arguing there was no jurisdictional obstacle under Rooker–Feldman and that his claims were properly pled.
- The Seventh Circuit concludes RF does not block jurisdiction but the complaint fails for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and diverts to state-law claims improperly or lacking diversity.
- The appellate court affirms dismissal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rooker–Feldman bar the suit? | Germaine argues RF blocks jurisdiction. | Crabb contends RF bars the challenge to a state court judgment. | RF does not bar this litigant; proceed to merits. |
| Is there federal subject-matter jurisdiction for a state-law wrongful-death claim? | Germaine asserts federal jurisdiction over the state-law claim. | Defendants contend no federal question or independent claim exists. | No subject-matter jurisdiction; state-law claim dismissed. |
| Are Florida wrongful-death requirements satisfied by Germaine? | Germaine could recover as wrongful-death claimant. | Relationship or representative requirements not met; no standing. | Not satisfied; Florida statutes require a personal representative or dependent status. |
| Can a brother sue for wrongful death under Wisconsin law without heirs? | Germaine seeks recovery under Wisconsin law as a sibling. | Wisconsin requires lineal heirs or a qualifying beneficiary; not alleged. | Not adequately alleged; recovery not pled under Wisconsin law. |
| Do the pleadings establish diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332? | Germaine relies on federal jurisdiction over state claims. | Citizenship and corporate details are not pled; diversity not shown. | Diversity not established; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (RF doctrine; not applicable to nonparties to state proceedings)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal jurisdiction cannot review state-court judgments)
- Gilbert v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2010) (supports limited RF scope within circuits)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994) (RF limitation depends on party’s role in state proceeding)
- Leaf v. Supreme Court, 979 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1992) (analyzes party status in RF context)
- Meyerson v. Harrah’s E. Chi. Casino, 299 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2002) (federal jurisdictional requirements; standing)
- McMillian v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2009) (diversity jurisdiction; pleading citizenship)
- McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2006) (diversity; proper pleading of parties' citizenship)
- Casio, Inc. v. S.M. & R. Co., 755 F.2d 528 (7th Cir. 1985) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction pleadings)