Maxwell v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Remand to District Court, Fremont County State Court for Further Proceedings by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/2/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01379-CMA-MJW
BETTY F. MAXWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
Defendant.

ORDER OF REMAND
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Remand.1 (Doc. # 7.)
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the in Colorado State court on April 8, 2011. (Doc. # 1-2.)
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on May 24, 2011. (Doc. # 1.) Defendant removed
the lawsuit to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides for diversity
jurisdiction.
In this case, Plaintiff challenges the validity of a state foreclosure action. After
removing the case, Defendant now requests remand on the grounds that the Court is
likely to find that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court agrees that it lacks

1

Under the Local Rules, the Court “will not consider any motion, other than a motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel . . . has conferred or made reasonable, goodfaith efforts to confer with . . . a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.” D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.1(A). Defendant’s counsel has not indicated that he conferred with the pro se party before
filing this action. However, this Motion concerns the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12. Thus, the Court will consider this motion.

subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court has previously found that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine2 precludes it from conducting appellate type review of state court judgments,
“including those that authorize and confirm the sale of property.” Snider v. B.A.C. Home
Loans Servicing LP, No. 11-cv-00224, 2011 WL 805792 (D. Colo. Feb. 28, 2011). Two
other courts in this district have also concluded that federal district courts should abstain
from hearing challenges to state foreclosure actions under either the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine or the Younger doctrine.3 See Memphis St., LLC v. Lowe Enterprises
Residential Investors, LLC, No. 07-cv-00150, 2007 WL 1456067 (D. Colo. May 15,
2007); Beeler Properties, LLC v. Lowe Enterprises Residential Investors, LLC, No. 07cv-00149, 2007 WL 1346591 (D. Colo. May 7, 2007).
Accordingly, the Motion to Remand (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED and this matter is
REMANDED to the District Court, Fremont County, Colorado for further proceedings.
DATED: June

02

, 2011
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2

The doctrine is named for the decisions in District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
3

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal district courts from conducting
appellate type review of state court judgments. Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kansas, 441 F.3d
1129, 1139 (10th Cir. 2006). The Younger abstention doctrine applies when claims raised in
a federal proceeding are the subject of an ongoing state proceeding. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971).

2