Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill, 3:25-cv-00255

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC initiated a mortgage foreclosure by executory process in Louisiana state court.
Defendant Harrison Truehill removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction based on his own affirmative defenses and counterclaims, specifically referencing debt bondage violations.
Truehill previously filed a deficient Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied for procedural reasons.
Truehill sought to cure those defects by requesting leave to file a second Motion for TRO.
The state court had already authorized seizure and sale of Truehill’s property at the time of removal.
The federal court reviewed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and whether removal was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal question jurisdiction on removal	Not an issue	Removal is proper due to federal defenses/counterclaims involving debt bondage	No jurisdiction; must appear in complaint
Diversity jurisdiction	Not asserted	Not established, but would justify removal if present	No diversity shown; not grounds for jurisdiction
Ability to litigate state foreclosure in federal	Not raised	Removal proper, federal court should enjoin sheriff's sale	Must be ordinary process, not executory; federal court lacks jurisdiction
Rooker-Feldman doctrine application	Not raised	Seeks injunction in federal court against state-ordered sale	Doctrine bars review of state judgment

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal question jurisdiction only arises from plaintiff’s complaint, not defenses)
Truong v. Bank of America, N.A., 717 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2013) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments)
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (district courts cannot review state court judgments)