Stubbs et al v. Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 9 Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Intervene. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 10 is DENIED. This Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/8/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
CEDRIC RAYNARD STUBBS and
DECHANTRA CATRECIA STUBBS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-762-FtM-99CM

RIVERSIDE BANK OF THE GULF
COAST, TIB BANK, FIRST
HORIZON HOME LOAN, FIRST
TENNESSEE HOME LOAN,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(''MERS''), SETERUS, FANNIE MAE,
JANE DOES and JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs pro se Cedric Raynard and
Dechantra Catrecia Stubbs’ Amended Motion to Intervene (Doc. #9) and Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint (Doc. #10) filed on November 18 and December 5, 2016. For
the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied and this case is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their
websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the
fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the
Court.

BACKGROUND
Following a sua sponte review2 of the Complaint (Doc. #1), on October 14, 2016,
the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and allowed Plaintiffs time to file an amended complaint in accordance with
that Order. (Doc. #3, citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). Instead of filing an
amended complaint, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Intervene. (Doc. #6). Rather
than construe the Amended Motion to Intervene (Doc. #6) as an amended complaint, the
Court allowed Plaintiffs additional time to file an amended complaint in accordance with
the Court’s October 14, 2016 Order. (Doc. #8).
Again, instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffs filed another Amended
Motion to Intervene. (Doc. #9). Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint (Doc. #10), attaching a proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. #10-1). The
Court will deny the request to intervene and review the proposed Amended Complaint to
determine if it would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
DISCUSSION
Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the Court's power to adjudicate a case.
Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick,
559 U.S. 154 (2010). “[A] court must first determine whether it has proper subject matter
jurisdiction before addressing the substantive issues.” Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365,

2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are obligated to inquire about jurisdiction sua
sponte whenever it may be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994); Univ. of S. Ala. v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is well settled
that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking." (citations omitted)). "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Univ. of
S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 410.

2

1366 (11th Cir. 1994). If jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the Court cannot proceed at
all; its sole remaining duty is to state that it lacks jurisdiction and dismiss the case. Steel
Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998); see also University of S. Ala. v.
The Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a federal court
determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to
continue.”).
Because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, their pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by an attorney and will be liberally construed.
Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). Even liberally construing the
proposed amendment, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case based
upon Plaintiffs’ allegations. Although no separate counts are alleged, Plaintiffs title the
amended complaint as a “Petition for Relief from Court Order Granting Judgment Against
Estate Without Jurisdictional and Right to a Fair Trial from Foreclosure and Sale” and
seem to be alleging injury and damages based upon Defendants’ misconduct during the
foreclosure of their home. Plaintiffs allege that the lender never produced the Note in the
underlying foreclosure proceeding, but instead produced an “Affidavit of Lost Note,” which
contents were untrue, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
“The Rooker–Feldman doctrine makes clear that federal district courts cannot
review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state appellate courts
or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme Court.” Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258,
1260 (11th Cir. 2009). This is a narrow doctrine, confined to “cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of

3

those judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
In the instant case, the Court again finds that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies
and Plaintiffs proposed amended complaint does not remedy the jurisdictional defects
previously identified by the Court. (Doc. #3). Plaintiffs could have raised their TILA claims
in the foreclosure action as either affirmative defenses or counterclaims and this Court
cannot act as an appellate court to the state court foreclosure proceedings and final
judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)
(stating a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court 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”).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Intervene (Doc. #9) is DENIED.

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. #10) is

DENIED.
(3)

This Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 8th day of February, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4