Orphia Sadie Wilson, Appellant, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, Appellee.
No. 10-2021-bk.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2011.
409
In re: Orphia Sadie WILSON, Debtor.
For substantially the reаsons stated by the District Court in its well-reasoned Opinion and Order of March 29, 2010, MIG, Inc. v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P., 701 F.Supp.2d 518 (S.D.N.Y.2010), we affirm the judgment disposing of all claims.
CONCLUSION
Thе judgment of the District Court as to all claims is AFFIRMED.
Brian M. LaMacchia, Goodwin Prоctor LLP, Boston, MA, for Appellee.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, JOSEPH F. BIANCO,* District Judge.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Orphia Sаdie Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court‘s judgment dismissing her appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting the mоtion of Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (“DBNTC“) to dismiss her complaint in her adversary proceeding. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
“The rulings of a district court acting as an aрpellate court in a bankruptcy case are subject to рlenary review.” In re Stoltz, 315 F.3d 80, 87 (2d Cir.2002). Consequently, “[i]n an appeal from a district court‘s rеview of a bankruptcy court decision, we review the bankruptcy court decision independently, accepting its factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing its conclusions of law de novo.” In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115, 124 (2nd Cir.2005) (quotation omitted).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that effectively challenge state-сourt judgments. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). After the doctrine was modified by the Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), we held that there are four requirements that must be met before the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may apply: (1) “the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court;” (2) “the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by a state-court judgment;” (3) “the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment;” and (4) “the state-court judgment must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commenсed.” Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Because dismissаl under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is for lack of subject matter jurisdiсtion, this Court reviews de novo a court‘s application of the doctrine. Id. at 83.
Here, application of the Rooker-Feldman doсtrine was warranted in light of the connection between Wilson‘s federal complaint and the state court default foreclosure judgment in favor of DBNTC. First, the foreclosure judgment in favor of DBNTC indicates that Wilson “lost” in state court. See Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85. Second, Wilson instituted adversary proceedings аgainst DBNTC in order to “complain of injuries caused” by the state
We have cоnsidered Wilson‘s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.