988 F.3d 1256
11th Cir.2021Background
- Wells Fargo filed a state-court foreclosure against Rohe (original suit dismissed 2016 for lack of standing); Wells Fargo obtained a new endorsement and won a second foreclosure judgment in Dec. 2018, which Rohe appealed to the Florida Third DCA.
- Rohe filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Feb. 2019; the automatic stay led the trial court to place the foreclosure on inactive status, but the Third DCA denied a stay of the appeal based on its precedent.
- The bankruptcy court granted Wells Fargo relief from the automatic stay in July 2019; Rohe filed a notice of removal to the bankruptcy court on July 14 asserting the appeal and related proceedings were related to her bankruptcy.
- Despite the removal notice, the Third DCA issued a per curiam order on Aug. 21 affirming the foreclosure and awarding appellate fees; the state trial court restored the case and rescheduled the sale.
- The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for removal on Sept. 4 (nunc pro tunc to July 14). Rohe then filed an independent petition in district court under the All Writs Act seeking declarations that the state courts’ actions were void and damages for willful stay violations.
- The district court dismissed the petition sua sponte (citing Rooker–Feldman); the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on different grounds: the All Writs Act could not be invoked because there was no underlying proceeding before the district court for it to protect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court could issue an All Writs Act order declaring state-court actions void and awarding damages | Rohe: § 1651 (All Writs Act), Article III, Judiciary Act authorize the District Court to protect federal rights and vindicate the automatic stay; sought declarations and damages | Wells Fargo/state courts: District lacks jurisdiction to nullify state-court judgments; bankruptcy court is the proper forum to enforce the stay and to resolve removal issues | Court: All Writs Act cannot be used because there was no underlying proceeding or prior order in the District Court to protect; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the petition was a prohibited attempt to obtain appellate review of state-court judgments (Rooker–Feldman) | Rohe: sought independent relief under All Writs Act rather than direct appeal of state judgment | Respondents: petition effectively sought to overturn state-court rulings and so was barred | Court: Did not decide on Rooker–Feldman as primary ground; affirmed on All Writs Act grounds (district not appropriate forum) |
| Whether removal of the state case vested jurisdiction in federal court and rendered subsequent state actions void | Rohe: removal terminated state-court jurisdiction; state orders after removal were void and actionable | Respondents: disputed removability and argued district court lacked authority to adjudicate removal-related claims independent of bankruptcy process | Court: If removal occurred, the removed proceeding is in bankruptcy court; any injunction or protection belongs to the bankruptcy court, not the District acting non-appellate |
| Whether the District Court could substitute All Writs Act review for bankruptcy-court remedies or normal appeals | Rohe: All Writs invocation is appropriate as an independent action to protect federal rights | Respondents: All Writs Act is supplemental and cannot replace statutory appellate review or bankruptcy remedies | Court: All Writs Act cannot be used as a substitute for the ordinary appellate/remedial process when the relevant proceeding lies in the bankruptcy court |
Key Cases Cited
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (All Writs Act is supplemental; non-appellate orders require an underlying proceeding the court can protect)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (2000) (All Writs Act limited to issuing process in aid of existing statutory jurisdiction)
- United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) (All Writs Act may effectuate and prevent frustration of a court’s prior orders)
- Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969) (All Writs Act supplies procedural instruments to achieve ends of justice)
- Penn. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 474 U.S. 34 (1985) (All Writs Act does not override a specific statutory scheme)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus is extraordinary; requires lack of other adequate means and clear right to relief)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal district appellate review of state-court judgments)
- Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., 861 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1988) (filing of a removal notice terminates state-court jurisdiction pending remand)
- In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 873 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2017) (bankruptcy court’s power to enforce the automatic stay, including via All Writs Act and § 105)