Moonah v. Wachovia Mortgage FSB et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Closing Case. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Monica Marjorie Moonah, 5 MOTION Requesting the Court to Serve Summons filed by Monica Marjorie Moonah. Signed by Judge Marci a G. Cooke on 8/10/2016. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-61863-Civ-COOKE
MONICA MARJORIE
MOONAH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
FSB, PATRICK HASFAWS,
EVA C. WOODEN, and DOES
1-10,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff Monica Marjorie Moonah (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Moonah”), proceeding pro se,
filed her Verified Claim for Reservation of Usucapcio [sic] Rights for Cancellation of
Forged Instruments; Fraud (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1) on August 4, 2016. Plaintiff, “a
foreign national in the Diaspora of the Sixth Region of Africa,” seeks possession of property
located at 5541 SW 3rd Court, Plantation, Florida 33317. See generally, Compl., ECF No. 1.
More specifically, she alleges that Defendants foreclosed upon her property using a forged
mortgage and note, and also committed fraud. See id. Plaintiff’s complaints stem from a
mortgage foreclosure action initiated against Plaintiff in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida on January 7, 2009 (CACE09000671). Plaintiff seeks
relief in the form of an order from this Court entering judgment in her favor against
Defendants, “preserv[ing] Plaintiff’s native reserved rights in land,” and cancelling the
“forged instruments.” Id.
After a review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the record, relevant legal authorities, and for
the reasons discussed herein, I find that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
action. Therefore, the matter is dismissed and this case closed.
I. DISCUSSION
Before addressing the merits of a case, a court must first determine whether subject

matter jurisdiction exists. See Wernick v. Matthews, 524 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[W]e
are not free to disregard the jurisdictional issue, for without jurisdiction we are powerless to
consider the merits. If we lack jurisdiction, it is our duty to notice that fact sua sponte.”);1
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

Subject matter jurisdiction

“involves the court’s competency to consider a given type of case,” so it “cannot be waived
or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties.” Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R.
Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1000 (11th Cir. 1982).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court generally lacks
jurisdiction to review final judgments of a state court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals
v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).
Rooker-Feldman applies to “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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The doctrine bars claims “that were actually
raised in the state court and those ‘inextricably intertwined’ with that state judgment.”
Figueroa v. MERSCORP, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Casale v.
Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), aff’d, 477 F. App’x 558 (11th
Cir. 2012) (per curiam). “A claim is inextricably intertwined if it would effectively nullify
the state court judgment or [if] it succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly
decided the issues.”

Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted).
Here, Plaintiff essentially seeks review of orders, including a final judgment of
foreclosure, entered against her in an underlying state court action. Because she challenges
the validity of the decisions entered in an underlying state court action, her claim (if
successful) would effectively nullify the state court’s orders, including its final judgment of
foreclosure, or would indicate that the state court wrongly entered that judgment. The
present claim is, therefore, inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment, and this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

1
Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in the
Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

2

II. CONCLUSION
Having determined that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s
claims, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Verified Claim for Reservation of
Usucapcio [sic] Rights for Cancellation of Forged Instruments; Fraud (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice.2 The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are
DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 10th day of August
2016.

Copies furnished to:
Monica Marjorie Moonah, pro se

2
Alternatively, as Plaintiff has failed to state a discernable cause of action, the Court also dismisses
her Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(1).

3