MCGARY v. RAVINDRA, 1:19-cv-03249

Theodore McGary and his ex-wife Barbara McGary signed a March 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) splitting marital property; the MOU stated Barbara would receive $75,146.63 from McGary’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) via a court order.
Virginia Circuit Court entered a final divorce decree and a Retirement Benefits Court Order (RBCO) adopting the MOU terms but specifying the payment be adjusted for investment gains and losses from 2011 to distribution.
McGary appealed to Virginia courts and later moved to vacate the RBCO alleging fraud; the state court rejected his fraud claim as "without merit and entirely specious," he failed to prosecute a later appeal, and was held in contempt for interfering with disbursement.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (TSP Board) reviewed the RBCO, determined it was a qualifying order under FERSA/regulations, calculated an adjusted payout, and disbursed about $180,959 to Barbara in July 2019.
McGary sued pro se in federal court alleging fraud against Barbara and breach of fiduciary duty under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERSA) against Ravindra Deo (TSP Executive Director); defendants moved to dismiss (Barbara under Rule 12(b)(1) invoking Rooker-Feldman; Deo under Rule 12(b)(6)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over fraud claim (Rooker-Feldman)	McGary argues RBCO resulted from fraudulent misrepresentations and asks federal court to vacate MOU/RBCO and award divorce relief	Barbara says federal court lacks jurisdiction because McGary is a state-court loser and the suit seeks review of state judgments	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman: McGary was a state-court loser, claims are inextricably intertwined with state judgments, extrinsic fraud exception does not apply
Breach of fiduciary duty under FERSA against Deo	McGary says Deo breached duties by (1) following RBCO terms that allegedly added adjustment language not in the MOU and (2) failing to investigate his fraud allegations before disbursement	Deo says he had statutory/regulatory duty to honor a qualifying court order and no authority to relitigate or independently invalidate state-court proceedings	Dismissed for failure to state a claim: Deo complied with FERSA and implementing regulations; no plausible allegation he acted imprudently or outside his statutory duties
Rule 60(b) / federal review argument	McGary contends Rule 60(b) permits federal district court to vacate the state-court judgment	Defendants point out Rule 60(b) applies to relief from federal judgments, not state-court decisions	Rejected: Rule 60(b) does not confer jurisdiction to revisit state court judgments in federal court

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over final state court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits federal review of state court decisions on matters of state law)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (clarifies Rooker-Feldman scope concerning state-court losers seeking federal review)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) pleading)
Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (application of Rooker-Feldman in D.C. Circuit)
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (Rooker-Feldman criteria and limits)
Firestone v. Fed. Ret. Thrift Inv. Bd., 375 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 2019) (TSP Board required to follow statutory and regulatory obligations)