Duetsche Bank National Trust Company v. Philias et al

Filing 10

Order Remanding Case to State Court Closing Case. Motions terminated: 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Nirva D. Philias. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/15/2015. (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. 15-21315-Civ-COOKE
DUETSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee
for Long Beach Mortgage Trust
2006-2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NIRVA D. PHILIAS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER REMANDING AND CLOSING CASE
Defendant Nirva D. Philias (“Ms. Philias”), proceeding pro se, filed her Notice of
Removal (ECF No. 1) on April 6, 2015, removing this action from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Ms. Philias seeks to remove this state court action to
federal court under both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. More specifically, she
alleges claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) as a “crosscomplaint” to Plaintiff’s foreclosure action in state court. See generally Notice of Removal,
ECF No. 1. After a review of the Notice of Removal, 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 remanded.
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

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).

“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). RookerFeldman 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, Ms. Philias attaches documents to her Notice of Removal indicating that the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has already rendered final judgment in the
state court foreclosure action. A review of the state court docket reveals that a mortgage
foreclosure sale is currently scheduled for June 24, 2015. In removing this action federal
court, Ms. Philias is essentially attempting to challenge the validity of the state court
foreclosure process, and her claims (if successful) would effectively nullify the state court’s
foreclosure judgment, or would indicate that the state court wrongly entered that judgment.
The present claims are, therefore, inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment,
and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.
II. CONCLUSION
Having determined that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s
claims, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.

pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.
2

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. All

DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of May 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Oliva Rodriguez, pro se

3