Buhl et al v. Grady et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for the reasons discussed in the attached Order of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/8/2016. (Hudson, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PAUL D. BUHL & LUCE L. BUHL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM D. GRADY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-1808 (VLB)
November 8, 2016

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This action was filed on November 2, 2016 by Paul D. Buhl and Luce L.
Buhl (“Plaintiffs”) against William D. Grady, Federal National Mortgage
Association, and Liberty Bank (“Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that
"Liberty Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the Plaintiffs, including a
claim for deficiency judgment, concerning real property at 12 Casner Road, East
Haddam, Connecticut ("Property"), more particularly described in Schedule A
hereto. A judgment of judicial foreclosure by sale was entered with sale
scheduled for May 21, 2016. Grady was appointed committee of sale." [Dkt. No. 1
at ¶11.] Grady conducted a sale of the Property and the Superior Court approved
the sale over the Plaintiff's objections. Id. at ¶12. Plaintiffs seek an order of this
court declaring the conveyances of the Property by the mortgagee and the
purchaser at the foreclosure sale incident to the Superior Court order void ab
initio, enjoining the conveyance of the property and quieting title to the Property.
Id. at ¶¶19, 21, First Wherefore Clause.
Adjudication of this case requires the review of a final Judgment entered in
Connecticut Superior Court. It would be both inappropriate and impermissible for

this Court to entertain the matter and enter a ruling on the merits. Pursuant to the
Rooker – Feldman doctrine, Federal District Courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, and lack the authority to review final state court judgments. See
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States District
Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court.”). As the court
stated in Atantic Coast Line Railroad Co., “[w]hile the lower federal courts were
given certain powers in the [Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73], among those
powers was not the power to review directly cases from state courts, and they
have not been given such powers since that time.” Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v.
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970).
The Second Circuit has articulated four requirements for the application of
the Rooker – Feldman doctrine: (1) the federal-court plaintiffs lost in state court;
(2) the plaintiffs complain of injuries caused by a state court judgment; (3) the
plaintiffs invite review and rejection of that judgment; and (4) the state judgment
was rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Vossbrinck v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 426 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Hoblock v.
Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005).
Here the Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was a defendant in a
foreclosure case before the state Superior Court prior to filing this case. The
state court ordered the Plaintiff's property sold. The Plaintiffs contest the
decisions of the state court and ask this court to void the conveyances made
pursuant to the state court decision and order. This case falls squarely within the
2

four prongs of the Second Circuit’s test. This Court therefore lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this matter. Vossbrinck, 773 F.3d at 426. The Court has
authority to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56,
63 (2d Cir. 2009).
Wherefore, this case is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed DISMISSED.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated this 8th day of November, 2016 at Hartford, Connecticut.

3