Kevin Harold v. Christopher Steel
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23296
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Small-claims judgment against Harold for just over $1,000; he did not pay despite agreeing to entry.
- Decades later, Steel sought garnishment of Harold’s wages, claiming to represent the creditor and obtaining a garnishment order.
- Harold contested Steel’s identity as creditor and argued Steel did not represent the sole authorized to enforce the judgment.
- State court conducted a hearing and maintained the garnishment order against Harold.
- Harold filed a federal FDCPA suit alleging false statements (15 U.S.C. §1692e); district court dismissed under Rooker-Feldman for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding Rooker-Feldman applies to challenges to state-court judgments and that §1692e does not authorize federal review of state-court procedures or evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars federal review of the state-garnishment decision. | Harold argues the claim is independent and not a challenge to the state decision. | Defendant contends the injury traces to the state judgment and is barred. | Yes, barred by Rooker-Feldman. |
| Whether §1692e claims can circumvent Rooker-Feldman when the injury is from state-litigation procedures. | Harold claims §1692e violations occurred during state litigation. | Violations during state litigation cannot render federal jurisdiction. | No; §1692e does not authorize review of state-court procedures. |
| Whether the claim could be pursued under independent theories under 28 U.S.C. §1738 or issue preclusion. | Harold relies on independent injury separate from the state decision. | State decision controls; no independent federal remedy. | Not accepted; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Epps v. Credit-Net, Inc., 320 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman applicable to false-statements claims arising from state-court litigation)
- Kelley v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 548 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2008) (applies Rooker-Feldman to FDCPA claims in this context)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (S. Ct. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman applies when state-court injury is at issue)
- Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 757 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc; limits of FDCPA claims in state-litigation context)
- Geico Insurance Co. v. Graham, 14 N.E.3d 854 (Ind. App. 2014) (Ind. App. decision on issue-preclusion/relief from state decisions)
- Tipton v. Flack, 149 Ind. App. 129 (Ind. App. 1971) (Indiana appellate approach to finality in garnishment)
- Green v. Mattingly, 585 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (dictum on finality and related considerations)
- Mehta v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, 681 F.3d 885 (7th Cir. 2012) (state decisions as final; jurisdictional scope discussions)
- Kollintzas v. United States, 501 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2007) (finality of garnishment orders; review considerations)
- Sloan v. United States, 505 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2007) (garnishment enforcement finality considerations)