Sutasinee Thana v. Board of License Commissioner

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03481-PWG. [999871490]. [15-1660]

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 19

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1660

SUTASINEE THANA; MICHAEL JAMES LOHMAN; THAI SEAFOOD & GRILL,
INC., trading as Thai Palace & Thai Palace & Lounge,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF LICENSE COMMISSIONERS FOR CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND;
PAMELA SMITH, Chair; GUY BLACK, Member; TOMASINA COATES,
Member; STEVEN LOWE, Member; WILLIAM YOUNG, Member,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:14cv-03481-PWG)

Argued:

May 11, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion.
Judge Niemeyer
wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Keenan
joined.
ARGUED: Charles Grant Byrd, Jr., ALSTON & BYRD, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants.
Kevin Bock Karpinski, KARPINSKI,
COLARESI & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
Michael B. Rynd, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 19

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
In
properly

this

appeal,

applied

the

we

decide

whether

Rooker-Feldman

the

doctrine

district
to

court

dismiss

this

federal action challenging the actions of a state administrative
agency that were reviewed in state court.
The

Board

of

License

Commissioners

of

Charles

County,

Maryland (“the Board”), revoked the alcoholic beverage license
of a restaurant and lounge known as Thai Palace, as well as two
consent orders that imposed conditions on the license, because
Thai Palace violated certain conditions imposed by the consent
orders.

The Circuit Court for Charles County affirmed in part

and remanded in part, and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed

the

circuit

court.

The

Maryland

Court

of

Appeals

declined to grant certiorari.
Shortly

after

the

Circuit

Court

for

Charles

County

had

ruled and before Thai Palace filed its notice of appeal to the
Court of Special Appeals, Thai Palace commenced this federal
action

under

challenging

42

the

U.S.C.
actions

§
of

1983
the

and

the

Board.

First

The

Amendment,

district

court

dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

See Rooker v. Fid. Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462

(1983).

The

district

court

concluded

that

because

Thai

Palace “seeks to attribute error to the core of the Board’s
2

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 19

order and the circuit court ruling affirming it,” its federal
action “falls neatly within the bounds of the [Rooker-Feldman]
doctrine.”
We reverse and remand, concluding that Thai Palace has,
with this action, commenced an independent, concurrent action
challenging actions by a state administrative agency.

Because

Thai

conduct

Palace

did

not

request

the

district

court

to

appellate review of the state court judgment itself, the RookerFeldman doctrine does not apply.

See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi

Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

To the extent

that the district court concluded that Thai Palace is seeking to
litigate

the

same

claims

or

issues

decided

in

the

state

proceedings, it can, on remand, apply state law principles of
preclusion to bar this action if that proves to be appropriate.

I
Thai Palace -- formally, Thai Seafood & Grill, Inc., and
trading

as

Thai

Palace

and

Thai

Palace

&

restaurant and lounge in Waldorf, Maryland.

Lounge

--

is

a

Sutasinee Thana,

her husband, and Michael Lohman are the owners of Thai Palace,
and

Thana

behalf

of

and

Lohman

Thai

hold

Palace.

the

alcoholic

In

2009,

beverage

Thai

Palace 1

license

on

filed

an

application with the Board for an alcoholic beverage license,
1

We refer collectively
Lohman as “Thai Palace.”

to

3

the

corporation,

Thana,

and

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 4 of 19

effectively seeking reinstatement of an earlier license that had
been revoked in 2007 for hosting entertainment that featured
nudity.

Following a hearing, the Board and Thai Palace entered

into a consent order dated November 12, 2009, by which the Board
issued the alcoholic beverage license on the condition that Thai
Palace “be operated as a family restaurant” between the hours of
11:00

a.m.

and

10:00

p.m.

and

“that

there

shall

be

no

entertainment other than dinner music from either a radio and/or
t.v. . . . without prior written approval of the Board.”
Some two years later, Thai Palace requested that the Board
rescind the November 2009 Consent Order to allow it to once
again

provide

live

entertainment.

At

the

hearing

on

this

request, the Board declined to rescind the November 2009 Consent
Order but did agree to modify it.

Accordingly, the Board and

Thai Palace entered into a second consent order, dated January
12,

2012,

operation

which
and

allowed

also

Thai

permitted

Palace

to

it

offer

to

extend

its

hours

“instrumental

acoustical music; Karaoke; [and] DJ music and dancing.”

of
and
But

this second consent order also provided that Thai Palace “shall
not

allow

an

outside

promoter

to

maintain

control

of

any

entertainment and shall not offer any ‘teenager only’ events or
‘go-go’ entertainment.” 2

Finally, the January 2012 Consent Order

2

According to the complaint, “go-go” music “is a subgenre
associated with funk music that originated in Washington, D.C.
4

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 5 of 19

provided that it would remain in effect for a period of three
years, after which it would expire and be “null and void and of
no further effect.”
Notwithstanding
Order,

Thai

Palace

the

terms

contracted

perform at Thai Palace.

of

the

with

January

various

2012

“go-go”

Consent
bands

to

After receiving information about these

concerts from the police, the Board issued an order on June 20,
2013, requiring Thai Palace to show cause why the January 2012
Consent Order “should not be revoked.”

Following an evidentiary

hearing, the Board issued a decision revoking the November 2009
Consent Order, the January 2012 Consent Order, and Thai Palace’s
alcoholic beverage license.
Pursuant

to

Maryland

statutory

provisions

for

review

of

administrative orders, Thai Palace filed a petition for review
of the Board’s decision in the Circuit Court for Charles County.
See

Md.

Code

Ann.,

Art.

2B,

§

16-101.

The

circuit

court

affirmed the Board with respect to its revocation of the January
2012

Consent

Order;

concluded

that

the

Board

had

made

no

findings that the November 2009 Consent Order had been violated;
and remanded for further findings in connection with whether
Thai

Palace’s

Thai

Palace

alcoholic
appealed

beverage

the

license

circuit

should

court’s

be

decision

revoked.
to

the

in the mid-1960’s to late 1970’s” and that “remains primarily
popular in the area as a uniquely regional music style.”
5

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 6 of 19

Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed by decision
dated January 29, 2016.
Charles

Cnty.,

Thereafter,

130

Thai

Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for

A.3d

Palace

1103
filed

(Md.
a

Ct.

Spec.

petition

App.

for

a

2016).

writ

of

certiorari in the Maryland Court of Appeals, which denied the
petition on May 23, 2016.
Before filing its appeal to the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals,

Thai

Palace

commenced

this

action

under

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983, alleging that, by conditioning its alcoholic beverage
license on its agreement not to host “go-go” entertainment and
by enforcing that condition, the Board had violated its First
Amendment rights.

Thai Palace sought declaratory and injunctive

relief, $500,000 in compensatory damages, and attorneys fees and
costs.

The Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the district court
granted by order dated May 14, 2015.

The court concluded that

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine,

explaining

that

Thai

Palace

“plainly

seeks

to

attribute error to the core of the Board’s order and the circuit
court ruling affirming it (and thereby, to overturn them).”
From the district court’s order dismissing the complaint,
Thai Palace filed this appeal.

6

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 7 of 19

II
Thai

Palace

contends,

contrary

to

the

district

court’s

holding, that it does not, by this action, “seek review . . . of
the decision of the Circuit Court for Charles County” and that
the

district

court

therefore

erred

in

applying

Feldman doctrine to dismiss the action.

the

Rooker-

It argues that its

federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeks compensatory damages,
as well as equitable relief, for the Board’s conditioning of its
alcoholic beverage license on its agreement not to promote or
offer “go-go” entertainment and for the Board’s enforcement of
that

condition,

in

violation

of

the

First

Amendment.

Thai

Palace observes that, because “[c]ompensatory damages cannot be
awarded

in

[its

administrative

appeal,]

Feldman] doctrine is not applicable.”

.

.

.

the

[Rooker-

It maintains that rather

than dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, the district
court should have stayed the case pending the outcome of the
state

court

proceedings

and

then

applied

principles

of

preclusion to address the Board’s arguments.
The Board, in contrast, contends that the district court
correctly

dismissed

this

action

under

the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, arguing that “[t]here could have been no favorable
resolution
without

a

judgment,

to

[Thai

Palace’s]

corresponding
and

the

claim

determination

Board’s

decision
7

in
that

the
the

affirmed

district
State
by

that

court
court’s
State

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

court’s

Filed: 06/28/2016

judgment,

were

Pg: 8 of 19

decided

in

error.”

The

Board

notes

further that “[t]here could be no award of compensatory damages
without the same federal review and rejection of the State court
judgment which is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”

In

short, the Board argues that Thai Palace “asked the district
court to sit in direct review of the State court’s judgment and
by

extension,

the

underlying

administrative agency.”

decision

of

the

Board,

an

Alternatively, the Board argues that

“there is no longer a justiciable controversy before the Court,
as [the January 2012 Consent Order] became null and void by its
own terms as of January 12, 2015.”
The principal issue thus presented is whether the district
court properly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss
this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine followed from Congress’ careful
assignment

of

federal

subject

matter

jurisdiction,

allocating

original jurisdiction to the district courts in, for example, 28
U.S.C.
(federal

§ 1330(a)

(actions

question

jurisdiction),

against

jurisdiction),

while

allocating

foreign
and

§

appellate

states),
1332(a)

§

1331

(diversity

jurisdiction

over

final state court judgments to the Supreme Court in § 1257(a).
The doctrine thus holds that “lower federal courts are precluded
from

exercising

judgments.”

appellate

jurisdiction

over

final

state-court

Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (per
8

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

curiam).

Thus,

the

focused,

“confined

Pg: 9 of 19

Rooker-Feldman

to

‘cases

brought

doctrine
by

is

narrow

state-court

and

losers

complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
before

the

district

court

proceedings

commenced

and

inviting

district court review and rejection of those judgments.’”

Id.

at 464 (quoting Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284).
Of course, Congress could allocate jurisdiction to district
courts to “oversee” state court judgments, as it has done in
authorizing federal habeas review, see Exxon, 544 U.S. at 292
n.8, but it has not done so generally to confer on district
courts appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments.

The

doctrine goes no further than necessary to effectuate Congress’
allocation of subject matter jurisdiction between the district
courts and the Supreme Court, as the Exxon Court emphasized in
noting that the doctrine should be applied no broader than the
holdings in the two cases from which the doctrine takes its
name.

Id. at 284.

In Rooker, a party that lost before the Indiana Supreme
Court and that failed to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court
filed

an

action

in

federal

district

court,

challenging

the

constitutionality of the state court judgment and seeking to
have

it

declared

“null

and

void.”

263

U.S.

at

414-15.

Affirming the district court’s dismissal of the federal suit for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled
9

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 10 of 19

that the federal suit amounted to an appeal of the state court
judgment and that Congress had vested jurisdiction to entertain
such an appeal only in the Supreme Court.

Id. at 415-16.

In Feldman, the plaintiffs sued the District of Columbia’s
highest court in federal district court after the District of
Columbia

court

denied

membership rule.
affirmed

could

requests

for

460 U.S. at 468.

dismissal

plaintiffs

their

of

the

challenge

case,
the

a

waiver

of

a

bar

Again, the Supreme Court
holding

that

constitutionality

while
of

the

the
bar

admission rule itself in a federal district court, they could
not challenge the District of Columbia court’s judgment denying
their waiver petitions in a federal district court.

Id. at 482-

83.
In the years following these two decisions, which together
defined

the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine,

courts,

including

this

court, broadly interpreted the doctrine as barring the loser in
a state court adjudication “from bringing suit in federal court
alleging the same claim or a claim that could have been brought
in the state proceedings,” thereby sliding the analysis into an
application of claim preclusion principles.

Davani v. Va. Dep’t

of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 713 (4th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).
In

Exxon,

however,

the

Supreme

Court

corrected

this

misunderstanding, warning that such an expansive construction of
the doctrine threatens both to “overrid[e] Congress’ conferral
10

Appeal: 15-1660

of

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 11 of 19

federal-court

jurisdiction

concurrent

with

jurisdiction

exercised by state courts, and [to] supersed[e] the ordinary
application of preclusion law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738.”
544 U.S. at 283 (emphasis added).

Seeking to bring the doctrine

back to its narrow focus, the Exxon Court clarified that, rather
than

serving

as

preclusion

by

another

name,

“[t]he

Rooker-

Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of the kind from
which the doctrine acquired its name:
court

losers

judgments

complaining

rendered

before

of

cases brought by state-

injuries
the

caused

district

by

state-court

court

proceedings

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of
those judgments.”

Id. at 284 (emphasis added).

The Court even

indicated that it sought to restrict the doctrine to cases whose
procedural postures mirrored those in the Rooker and Feldman
cases themselves:
Rooker and Feldman exhibit the limited circumstances
in which this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over
state-court judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, precludes a
United States district court from exercising subjectmatter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be
empowered to adjudicate under a congressional grant of
authority[.] In both cases, the losing party in state
court filed suit in federal court after the state
proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by
the state-court judgment and seeking review and
rejection of that judgment.
Id. at 291 (citations omitted).
To

emphasize

doctrine is

to

the

play,

narrow
the

role

Supreme
11

that

Court

the

has

Rooker-Feldman

noted

repeatedly

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 12 of 19

that, since the decisions in Rooker and Feldman, it has never
applied

the

doctrine

to

matter jurisdiction.

deprive

a

district

court

of

subject

See, e.g., Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.

521, 531 (2011); Lance, 546 U.S. at 464; Exxon, 544 U.S. at 287.
Similarly, since Exxon, we have never, in a published opinion,
held that a district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
To be sure, the distinction between preclusion principles
and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can sometimes be subtle, but it
is nonetheless important to maintain.
designed

to

address

the

tension

Preclusion principles are
between

two

concurrent,

independent suits that results when the two suits address the
same subject matter, claims, and legal principles.

Whereas the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, by contrast, assesses only whether the
process
Court

for

under

appealing
28

U.S.C.

a
§

state

court

1257(a)

has

judgment
been

to

the

Supreme

sidetracked

by

an

action filed in a district court specifically to review that
state court judgment.

Thus, if a plaintiff in federal court

does not seek review of the state court judgment itself but
instead “presents an independent claim, it is not an impediment
to

the

exercise

of

federal

jurisdiction

that

the

same

or

a

related question was earlier aired between the parties in state
court.”
quotation

Skinner, 562 U.S. at 532 (emphasis added) (internal
marks

and

alterations
12

omitted)

(quoting

Exxon,

544

Appeal: 15-1660

U.S.

Doc: 39

at

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 13 of 19

Rather,

Court

292-93).

the

has

recognized

that

Congress’ policy allows for concurrent litigation in federal and
state

courts,

proceedings

noting

should

that

be

any

managed

preclusion, comity, and abstention.
Consistent

with

this

narrow

tensions
through

between
the

the

two

doctrines

of

Exxon, 544 U.S. at 292-93.
articulation

of

the

Rooker-

Feldman doctrine, the Supreme Court has also recognized that
state administrative and executive actions are not covered by
the doctrine.

See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md.,

535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3 (2002) (“[T]he [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine
has

no

application

including

to

judicial

determinations

made

review

of

by

state

a

executive

action,

administrative

agency”); see also Lance, 546 U.S. at 464; Exxon, 544 U.S. at
287.

State

administrative

decisions,

even

those

that

are

subject to judicial review by state courts, are beyond doubt
subject to challenge in an independent federal action commenced
under jurisdiction explicitly conferred by Congress.
In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that this
federal action is a concurrent, independent action supported by
original jurisdiction conferred by Congress on federal district
courts, even though the complaint in the action includes claims
and legal arguments similar to or the same as those made in the
state proceedings, and that therefore it is not barred by the

13

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Pg: 14 of 19

There are several reasons supporting

this conclusion.
First, if we apply strictly the Supreme Court’s instruction
that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is to be “confined to cases of
the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name,” Exxon, 544
U.S. at 284, we would conclude that the doctrine does not apply
here because the district court here was not called upon to
exercise appellate jurisdiction over a final judgment from “the
highest court of a State in which a decision could be had,”
U.S.C.

§

1257(a)

(emphasis

Rooker and Feldman.
in

the

Supreme

added),

as

was

the

case

in

28
both

In those cases, instead of seeking review

Court

of

a

judgment

entered

by

the

State’s

highest court, the losing party pursued review of the judgment
in a federal district court, frustrating the Supreme Court’s
exclusive

jurisdiction

over

such

a

judgment.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 1257(a) (providing that “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered
by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be
had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court” in cases raising
federal

questions);

see

also

Exxon,

544

U.S.

at

291

(noting

that, in both Rooker and Feldman, the plaintiff “filed suit in
federal
added)).

court

after

Obviously,

the

state

the

case

profile.

14

proceedings
before

us

ended”

does

not

(emphasis
fit

that

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Second,

Filed: 06/28/2016

and

more

Pg: 15 of 19

fundamental

to

the

controlling

indicia

articulated by the Supreme Court in Exxon, Thai Palace’s action
was, and is, challenging the action of a state administrative
agency, rather
judgment.
of

the

Instead,

than

alleging

injury

caused

by

a

state

court

Nowhere in its complaint did Thai Palace seek review

judgment
as

the

of

the

Circuit

district

court

Court

for

Charles

acknowledged,

its

Country.

claims

premised on injuries allegedly caused by the Board.

are

Because

Thai Palace’s federal action does not seek redress for an injury
allegedly caused by a judgment of a state court, the RookerFeldman doctrine does not apply.

See Exxon, 544 U.S. at 284

(holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies only to cases
brought

to

“complain[]

of

injuries

caused

by

state-court

judgments”).
Third, and more generally, because Thai Palace challenges
state administrative actions, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does
not apply as a categorical matter.
(“Rooker-Feldman

does

not

apply

See Exxon, 544 U.S. at 287

to

a

suit

seeking

review

of

state agency action”); Verizon Md., 535 U.S. at 614 n.3 (same).
Fourth,
demonstrate
independent,

the
that

differences
this

concurrent

between

the

two

action

must

be

federal

that

does

not

seen

as

an

undermine

the

Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over any state court judgment.

See

Skinner, 562 U.S. at 532.

action

proceedings

The state proceeding in this case was
15

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 16 of 19

an agency-initiated proceeding, in which limited and deferential
judicial review was afforded.

The agency’s authority extended

only to issuing, modifying, and revoking Thai Palace’s alcoholic
beverage license, and judicial review was limited to determining
whether

the

Board’s

decision

was

“supported

by

substantial

evidence” and whether the Board “committed [an] error of law.”
Paek v. Prince George’s Cnty. Bd. of License Comm’rs, 851 A.2d
540,

544

(Md.

2004).

Moreover,

in

reviewing

the

Board’s

decision, Maryland courts could only modify, affirm, reverse, or
remand the proceedings to the Board, possessing no authority to
award damages.

See Md. Code Ann., Art. 2(B), § 16-101(e)(4).

Any final judgment by the State’s highest court could then be
reviewed by the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

This

action, on the other hand, was commenced under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
to challenge the constitutionality of the Board’s actions under
the First Amendment, and the district court possessed original
subject matter jurisdiction over such an action under 28 U.S.C.
§

1331

(federal

declaratory
damages.
our

injunctive

jurisdiction).
relief,

Thai

In
Palace

addition
also

to

sought

In these circumstances, the Supreme Court, as well as

court,

barred

and

question

by

has

never

held

that

the

Rooker-Feldman

a

federal

doctrine

district

from

court

exercising

is
its

subject matter jurisdiction over such a concurrent proceeding,
even though the district court would have to give effect to 28
16

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 17 of 19

U.S.C. § 1738, which requires federal courts to “give the same
preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of
that State would give.”

Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama

Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 523 (1986).
And

fifth,

while

pursuing

this

independent,

concurrent

action, Thai Palace in fact never sought to bypass the Supreme
Court’s appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) over
any

relevant

state

court

judgment.

To

the

contrary,

it

challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court of Charles County
by appealing it to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and
ultimately the Maryland Court of Appeals, thereby remaining on
track for potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus,

Thai Palace did not frustrate the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction,
and

the

purpose

behind

the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine

was

not

implicated.
Rather than limit itself to the narrow question of whether
it was called upon to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a
state

court

doctrine

the

district

court

principles

preclusion

judgment,

to

conclude

that

divested

it

of

subject

matter

effectively
the

applied

Rooker-Feldman

jurisdiction.

For

example, the court noted that, in this action, Thai Palace was
presenting “the substance of the very constitutional challenge”
that the Circuit Court for Charles County addressed; that it
“could

not

possibly

rule

in

[Thai
17

Palace’s]

favor

on

these

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 18 of 19

claims without finding error by the state court”; and that Thai
Palace’s “success on the merits would necessitate a finding that
the

state

court

wrongly

decided

the

issues

before

(Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

it.”

Yet these

observations about the similarity of the claims are beside the
point.

While the court’s concerns may have been accurate and

valid, they do not relate to whether Rooker-Feldman applies.
See

Exxon,

544

U.S.

at

293

(“Nor

does

[the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine] stop a district court from exercising subject-matter
jurisdiction

simply

because

a

party

attempts

to

litigate

in

federal court a matter previously litigated in state court”).
Rather, the district court’s concern that it could not rule in
Thai Palace’s favor without attributing error to the state court
amounted

to

the

application

of

traditional

preclusion

principles.
At bottom, we conclude that this federal action, commenced
by

Thai

Palace

under

42

U.S.C.

§

1983

and

alleging

injury

inflicted by actions of a state administrative agency, qualifies
as an independent, concurrent action that does not undermine the
Supreme

Court’s

appellate

jurisdiction

over

state

court

judgments, and accordingly the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
apply.
continue

Of course, this is not to say that this action can
if

it

is

barred

under

state

preclusion

principles.

Nonetheless, in this posture at this time, we must reverse the
18

Appeal: 15-1660

Doc: 39

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 19 of 19

district court’s Rooker-Feldman ruling and remand for further
proceedings. 3
REVERSED AND REMANDED

3

We note that this case is not moot, as the Board claims,
given that Thai Palace seeks compensatory damages for past harm.
19