Jason Vicks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00263-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000010098]. Mailed to: Jason Vicks; Mekeisha Vicks. [16-1909]
Appeal: 16-1909
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1909
JASON VICKS; MEKEISHA VICKS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; JOHN DOE 1-5,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00263-FDW)
Submitted:
January 20, 2017
Decided:
January 25, 2017
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Jason Vicks, Mekeisha Vicks, Appellants Pro Se.
Dennis Kyle
Deak, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1909
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Jason and Mekeisha Vicks (“Appellants”) appeal the district
court’s order dismissing their civil action against Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (“Appellee”), arising from Appellee’s involvement
in
mortgage
foreclosure
proceedings
in
North
Carolina
court related to Appellants’ residential property.
state
The district
court dismissed four of Appellants’ claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, invoking the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine.
It
dismissed
of
their
remaining
claim
of
intentional
infliction
emotional distress (“IIED”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim.
affirm
in
part,
vacate
in
For the reasons that follow, we
part,
and
remand
for
further
proceedings.
We review de novo the district court’s determination that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims.
Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd., 807 F.3d 572, 580 (4th
Cir. 2015).
from
seeking
state-court
proceedings
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars state-court losers
review
in
judgments
commenced
federal
rendered
and
court
before
inviting
rejection of those judgments.”
of
“injuries
the
district
caused
district
court
by
court
review
and
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
*
D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2
Appeal: 16-1909
Indus.
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2017
Corp.,
doctrine,
544
federal
U.S.
280,
courts
Pg: 3 of 6
284
may
(2005).
Under
this
entertain
claims
narrow
previously
examined by a state court, so long as those claims do not seek
review of the state court decision itself.
See Elyazidi v.
SunTrust Bank, 780 F.3d 227, 233 (4th Cir. 2015).
Where a
federal complaint raises claims independent of, but in tension
with, a state court judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is
not
an
impediment
to
the
exercise
of
federal
jurisdiction”
simply because “the same or a related question was earlier aired
between the parties in state court,” and any tension created by
the concurrent federal and state proceedings “should be managed
through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention.”
Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., Md., 827 F.3d
314, 320 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court concluded that Appellants’ claims were
barred
by
the
Rooker-Feldman
doctrine
as
“inextricably
intertwined” with the state court’s foreclosure order because
success on their federal claims would require the district court
to determine that the state court order was wrongly decided or
to take action that would render that order ineffectual.
While
we have previously articulated a similar standard, see Plyler v.
Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997), subsequent authority
from the Supreme Court and this court has clarified the RookerFeldman doctrine’s narrow scope.
As we have explained,
3
Appeal: 16-1909
Doc: 16
Filed: 01/25/2017
Pg: 4 of 6
[u]nder
Exxon,
[the]
“inextricably
intertwined”
language does not create an additional legal test for
determining when claims challenging a state-court
decision are barred, but merely states a conclusion:
if the state-court loser seeks redress in the federal
district court for the injury caused by the statecourt decision, his federal claim is, by definition,
“inextricably
intertwined”
with
the
state-court
decision, and is therefore outside of the jurisdiction
of the federal district court.
Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 719 (4th Cir.
2006); see also Thana, 827 F.3d at 319-20 (describing doctrine’s
narrow application).
Thus, as the court also has clarified, the
mere fact that a ruling favorable to the federal plaintiff may
call into question the correctness of a state court judgment has
no
bearing
on
the
federal
court’s
jurisdiction
plaintiff’s claims under Rooker-Feldman.
over
the
See Thana, 827 F.3d at
322.
Here, Appellants’ first four claims for relief seek either
a declaration that Appellee has no rights to the loan proceeds
or damages against Appellee for violations of the Real Estate
Settlement
(2016),
While
Procedures
and
several
success
validity
of
Act
(“RESPA”),
provisions
on
these
claims
the
state
court’s
of
see
North
12
C.F.R.
Carolina
could
call
into
May
2011
order
§ 1024.35
state
law.
question
the
authorizing
foreclosure, the claims do not seek appellate review of that
order
or
fairly
allege
entering that order.
injury
caused
by
the
state
court
in
We therefore conclude that the district
4
Appeal: 16-1909
court
Doc: 16
erred
Filed: 01/25/2017
in
applying
Appellants’ claims.
the
Pg: 5 of 6
Rooker-Feldman
doctrine
to
bar
Further, while we are not precluded from
affirming the dismissal of these claims on alternative grounds,
see Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th
Cir.
1992),
upon
review
of
the
record
and
the
parties’
submissions on appeal, we conclude that prudence counsels in
favor
of
reserving
further
judgment
on
the
propriety
of
Appellants’ claims to the district court in the first instance.
We
therefore
vacate
the
district
court’s
dismissal
of
Appellants’ first four claims for relief and remand for further
proceedings.
Appellants also challenge the district court’s dismissal of
their
IIED
claim.
We
review
de
novo
dismissal for failure to state a claim.
F.3d
206,
214
(4th
Cir.
2016).
To
a
district
court’s
King v. Rubenstein, 825
survive
Rule
12(b)(6)
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record
confirms the district court’s conclusion that Appellants failed
to state a valid IIED claim.
See Holloway v. Wachovia Bank &
Trust
233,
Co.,
N.A.,
452
S.E.2d
240
(N.C.
1994)
(stating
elements of claim); Waddle v. Sparks, 414 S.E.2d 22, 27 (N.C.
1992) (describing requirement of “severe emotional distress”).
5
Appeal: 16-1909
We
Doc: 16
therefore
Filed: 01/25/2017
affirm
the
Pg: 6 of 6
district
court’s
dismissal
of
this
claim.
In
summary,
we
affirm
the
district
court’s
judgment
part, insofar as it dismisses Appellants’ IIED claim.
in
We vacate
the district court’s judgment in part, insofar as it dismisses
Appellants’
remaining
claims
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction, and we remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
In so doing, we express no opinion as to the
legal sufficiency of Appellants’ reinstated claims or to the
application
of
the
doctrines
of
issue
preclusion
and
claim
preclusion to those claims, leaving the adequate development of
these issues to the parties and to the district court.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?