Danzell v. Bank of America

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 10/14/2011. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
JOHN DAVIS DANZELL, III

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1536

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

BANK OF AMERICA

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by the Defendant, Bank of America. (Record Document 15). Noting that this
Motion is unopposed by pro se Plaintiff John Davis Danzell, III (“Danzell”), after a review
of the record, Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.
On September 15, 2006, Danzell executed a promissory note (“Note”) in favor of
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Record Document 15-1 at 1). This Note was secured by
a Mortgage on property located at 5741 Shoreline Drive, Shreveport, Louisiana 71119.
(Record Document 15-1 at 2). Bank of America subsequently became the holder of the
Note. Ultimately, Danzell became delinquent on his payment obligations under the Note.
See id. Bank of America eventually foreclosed on the aforementioned property, obtaining
a writ of seizure and sale from a Louisiana state court. See id. Danzell brings this civil
action seeking damages because “Defendant wrongly processed Plaintiff’s home to
Sheriff’s Sale, despite the Plaintiff’s effort to resolve the mortgage hardship, and without
reaching a resolution to the corrective processes previously engaged.” (Record Document
1).
Rule 12(b)(1) states that a claim must be dismissed if this Court lacks jurisdiction
over the matter. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). “When a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule
12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits.” Crenshaw-Logal
v. City of Abilene, Tex, 2011 WL 3363872 (5th Cir. 2011). The burden of proof for a
jurisdictional attack lies with the party asserting jurisdiction. In re FEMA Trailer
Formadlehyde Products 646 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 2011).
Bank of America contends that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this claim
because Danzell is attacking a state court writ of seizure and sale. Bank of America argues
the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine should apply. The Fifth Circuit has stated:
The Supreme Court has definitively established, in what has
become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that “federal
district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate
jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state
courts.” “If a state trial court errs the judgment is not void, it is
to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state appellate
court. Thereafter, recourse at the federal level is limited solely
to an application for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court.”
Union Planters Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004).
The First Judicial District Court of Louisiana issued an writ on June 30, 2009
directing the sheriff to seize and sell Danzell’s property. (Record Document 15-1 at 7).
Danzell did not seek to enjoin, stay or appeal this court ordered writ. See id. The claim
before this Court, in essence, is an attack on the validity of Bank of America’s right to
foreclose on Danzell’s property due to Danzell’s efforts to resolve the mortgage hardship.
(Record Document 1 at 2). Danzell has demanded the value of his home and a permanent
injunction against Bank of America. A judgment of this Court awarding Danzell his demands
would be no more than a reversal of the state court proceedings authorizing seizure and
sale.
Page 2 of 3

Since the claims brought before this Court are “inextricably intertwined” with a state
court order, it would be inappropriate for this Court to hear them. Danzell’s proper remedy
lied with the state court that issued the writ authorizing the sale and seizure of his property,
not with this Court.
Accordingly, after reviewing Bank of America’s unopposed Motion, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.
IT IS ORDERED that Bank of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 15)
is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close this case.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 14th day of October,
2011.

Page 3 of 3