Emmanuel v. Charter Bank, NA et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part 9 motion to dismiss; Insofar as the Complaint (Doc. 2) seeks to enjoin the foreclosure sale of the subject property, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Flo rida, Case No. 2016-CA-9948. In all other respects, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. On or before June 26, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. Adopting Report and Recommendations - re 16 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 6/12/2017. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

YOLANDA Y. EMMANUEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-2165-Orl-41KRS

CHARTER BANK, NA, LLP
MORTGAGE LTD, MGC MORTGAGE,
INC. and ANY UNKNOWN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). Magistrate
Judge Karla R. Spaulding submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 16), in which
she recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part, that Plaintiff’s claim seeking to
enjoin the foreclosure sale be remanded, and that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend. Defendants filed a Limited Objection (Doc. 17) to the R&R,
in which they argue that all remaining requests for injunctive relief in the Complaint (Doc. 2) are
also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and subject to dismissal.
After a de novo review, this Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R. Defendants argue
that granting the requested injunctive relief of preventing them to take title to the subject property
would be a violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for the same reasons as granting an injunction
for the sale of the property. However, Defendants’ argument mischaracterizes the nature of the
requested relief. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where the plaintiff seeks to overturn the
legal ruling of the state court, but it does not apply where the plaintiff does not seek an appeal of
the legal holding, even if the requested relief would indirectly render the state court’s ruling

Page 1 of 3

without effect. Here, Plaintiff is not asking this Court to review and reject the state court’s ruling.
Rather, Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief in lieu of or in addition to monetary damages for
Defendants’ alleged violations of her constitutional rights. While such relief is more than likely
unavailable, assuming that Plaintiff could prove her entitlement to such relief, it would render the
state court’s ruling without legal effect. But the request does not directly attack the legal soundness
or propriety of the state court’s holding. Therefore, the claim is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Merice v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-80614-CIV-MARRA, 2016 WL 1170838,
at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2016) (“The distinction appears to be that an award of monetary damages
would not nullify or reverse the state-court judgment.”). Accordingly, Defendants’ objection is
without merit.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
made a part of this Order.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED in part.
3. Insofar as the Complaint (Doc. 2) seeks to enjoin the foreclosure sale of the subject
property, this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Case No. 2016-CA-9948. In all other
respects, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. On or before June 26, 2017, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in
accordance with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely
file may result in the dismissal of this case without further notice.

Page 2 of 3

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 12, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
Clerk of the Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida

Page 3 of 3