Harris v. PHH Mortgage et al

Filing 9

ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3 ) is granted. Plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing (Doc. 5 ) is granted. Plaintiff's TRO application (Doc. 1 ) is denied and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 3/5/2025. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Anita Smith Harris,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

PHH Mortgage, et al.,

13

No. CV-25-00715-PHX-DWL
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff Anita Smith Harris (“Harris”) filed a complaint with

16

an embedded temporary restraining order (“TRO”) request (Doc. 1), an application for

17

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), and a motion to allow electronic filing (Doc.

18

5).

19
20

The motion to allow electronic filing is granted, as is the application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

21

A related federal action was recently dismissed. On February 3, 2025, in an action

22

captioned Harris v. Drake, 2:25-cv-00355-SMB, Harris filed a petition for writ of

23

mandamus asking the federal court to command Judge Drake, the Maricopa County

24

Superior Court judge who is presiding over a divorce lawsuit filed by Harris’s ex-spouse,

25

Perry Harris (“Perry”), Harris v. Harris, FN2015-003563 (“the divorce action”), to alter

26

his rulings in the divorce action. (Harris v. Drake, Doc. 1.) On February 20, 2025,

27

Harris filed a “motion to amend writ of mandamus to include notice of removal” (Harris

28

v. Drake, Doc. 12), seeking leave to remove the divorce action on the basis of violations

1

of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Truth in Lending Act

2

(“TILA”), and “mortgage fraud and unlawful foreclosure practices.” (Harris v. Drake,

3

Doc. 12-1.) The “draft” notice of removal listed Perry and PHH Mortgage Corporation

4

(“PHH”) as the plaintiffs in the divorce action. (Id.)

5

On February 27, 2025, Judge Brnovich dismissed Harris v. Drake with prejudice

6

on the grounds that “federal courts lack jurisdiction or authority to issue mandamus to

7

direct non-federal entities or officials, including judicial officers, in the performance of

8

their duties” and that the case “is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” which

9

“prevents federal courts from second-guessing state court decisions by barring the lower

10

federal courts from hearing de facto appeals from state-court judgments when they are

11

inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decision.” (Harris v. Drake, Doc. 14 at 5-

12

6) (cleaned up). Judge Brnovich also denied Harris’s attempt to amend the petition to

13

remove the divorce action and “modify the scope of her mandamus relief, with the help

14

of a [TRO] to somehow prevent the impending foreclosure of her property.” (Id. at 8

15

n.2.)

16

On March 3, 2025, Harris filed the present action, naming Perry and PHH as

17

defendants and seeking a TRO to prevent the impending foreclosure of her property,

18

asserting RESPA and TILA violations as well as violation of the Fair Debt Collection

19

Practices Act (FDCPA). (Doc. 1.) In short, the complaint and TRO appear to be, in

20

essence, the petition amendment that Judge Brnovich denied. The complaint asserts that

21

“[t]his case arises out of an eight-year legal battle in Arizona family court, which resulted

22

in a final order issued on March 24, 2023,” which led to foreclosure proceedings in

23

Georgia, where the Georgia courts “failed to properly analyze the Arizona order” and

24

“ignored Plaintiff’s motions.” (Id. at 2-3.) The complaint asserts that the foreclosure

25

ordered by the Georgia court is “illegal” and should be stopped. (Id. at 3.)

26

Plaintiff “assert[s] as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by the

27

[Georgia] state court in the earlier state court litigation” and seeks “relief from the state

28

court judgment” via a TRO enjoining a foreclosure ordered by the Georgia court, and

-2-

1

therefore Plaintiff’s complaint and TRO request are barred by the Rooker-Feldman

2

doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003). This action is therefore

3

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1154 (“If a federal plaintiff asserts

4

as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a

5

state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter

6

jurisdiction in federal district court.”).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

9
10
11

3) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to allow electronic filing
(Doc. 5) is granted.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s TRO application (Doc. 1) is denied

13

and this action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court

14

shall enter judgment and terminate this action.

15

Dated this 5th day of March, 2025.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-