Loumena v. Kennedy, 5:15-cv-00951

Background

Plaintiff Jack Loumena (pro se) sued state-court actors and private parties arising from the state-court-ordered sale of the family home at 21251 Almaden Road following his parents’ divorce; he alleged § 1983 violations (Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments) and tax-law violations.
The complaint largely duplicates allegations from an earlier suit (Kennedy I) filed by Loumena three days before and mirrors prior suits by his mother (Wylmina Hettinga) and his company Pacific Almaden Investments, LLC (PAI).
State court orders had directed the property sale, authorized the Superior Court Clerk to sign unreturned documents, found the sale to third-party buyers proper, and held that PAI never acquired title by foreclosure.
Multiple prior federal cases (by Loumena, PAI, and Hettinga) challenging the same state-court orders were dismissed under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; several such dismissals were affirmed or deemed frivolous on appeal; Hettinga has been declared a vexatious litigant.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Rooker–Feldman) and non–state-action; Chicago Title moved for Rule 11 sanctions and to declare Loumena a vexatious litigant; Loumena moved for sanctions against Title Co.
The district court granted dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, awarded Title Co. $300 in Rule 11 sanctions, denied Loumena’s sanctions request, and declared Loumena a vexatious litigant subject to narrowly tailored pre-filing review for claims related to the sale and proceeds of the Almaden property.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over § 1983 claims challenging state-court orders (Rooker–Feldman)	Loumena contended the sale, execution of deeds, and distribution of proceeds violated his federal rights and that some parties (e.g., PAI) lacked notice or joinder in state proceedings	Defendants argued the complaint is a de facto appeal of final state-court judgments and thus barred by Rooker–Feldman	Court: Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman (claims inextricably intertwined with state-court decisions)
Whether defendants are state actors for § 1983 purposes	Loumena alleged defendants acted under color of law and in agency relationship to effectuate deprivation	Defendants argued they are not state actors (alternative to Rooker–Feldman)	Court: Did not reach state-actor question because jurisdictional bar resolved case
Whether plaintiff’s complaint warranted Rule 11 sanctions	Loumena denied frivolous intent and sought sanctions against Title Co.	Title Co. argued complaint was frivolous, duplicative, filed to harass after repeated dismissals	Court: Granted Title Co. sanctions ($300) — complaint objectively frivolous and filed for improper purpose (harassment)
Whether plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant and subject to pre-filing review	Loumena contested characterization and accused defendants of misrepresenting PAI ownership	Title Co. and others cited Loumena’s repetitive, duplicative, and meritless filings tied to same state-court orders	Court: Declared Loumena a vexatious litigant; imposed narrowly tailored pre-filing review for future filings tied to the Almaden property sale/proceeds

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (prohibiting federal district courts from acting as appellate courts over state-court judgments) (establishes Rooker principle)
Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (federal courts lack authority to review final state-court judicial decisions) (expands Rooker doctrine)
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (defines when a federal suit is a de facto appeal — ‘‘errors by the state court as an injury’’ and seeking relief that would effectively reverse the state judgment)
Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2008) (claims are inextricably intertwined when district court must hold the state court was wrong to grant relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies plausibility standard and that courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
Conn v. Borjorquez, 967 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1992) (Rule 11 sanctions standard; sanctionable filings are frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation)