Lucas v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 04/01/2014. (c/m 4/2/14)(ads, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHRISTINE LUCAS
Trustee, Robert Lucas Family Trust
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. PJM-14-915
*
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
Defendant.
*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a resident of Cabin John, Maryland, filed this Complaint against CitiMortgage, Inc.,
invoking this court's federal question and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
S
1982, and Article XIII of the United States Constitution.
SS 1331,42
U.S.C.
She seemingly alleges that Defendant
was involved in the illegal foreclosure of family property at 5 Carver Road, Cabin John, Maryland,
and that a long term dispute of property ownership
misrepresentations
has existed due to the fraudulent
of the former trustee, her brother Jonnie Lucas, Sr., who illegally used the
property to obtain $500,000.00 in loans with the assistance of "lending personnel." Plaintiff avers
that many civil actions have been filed in the Maryland courts surrounding the real property.
She
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and asks that she be granted damages and that Defendant be
enjoined from trespassing on the aforementioned property. Because she appears indigent, Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted. Her Complaint, however, shall be
dismissed for reasons to follow.
In 2011, Plaintiff filed a federal Complaint against CitiMortgage, Inc. and the law firm that
engaged in foreclosure proceedings involving the Carver Road property on behalf of CitiMortgage,
Inc. See Lucas v, Bierman, Geesing, Ward, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. DKC-II-161
(D. Md.).
The court found the Complaint was subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second Complaint against CitiMortgage, Inc. alleging
fraudulent conduct.
The Complaint was summarily dismissed on May 22, 2013. See Lucas v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., Civil Action No. AW-13-1196 (D. Md.). On October 24,2013,
the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court. See Lucas v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., 544 Fed. App'x, 195 (4th Cir. 2013).
To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to collaterally attack state court orders involving the
Cabin John property, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine will not permit her to do so. In District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company,
263 U.S. 413 (1923), the Supreme Court formulated a general rule which distinguishes general
constitutional challenges to state laws and regulations over which federal courts have jurisdiction
from requests for review of specific state court decisions over which they have no jurisdiction.
Federal claims which are "inextricably intertwined with" state court decisions injudicial proceedings
fall outside of the federal court's jurisdiction.
See Feldman, 460 U.S. at
486-87.
The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is "confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its
name: 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 Industries Corporation, 544 U.S.
280, 284; see also Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006); Davani v. Virginia Department of
Transportation, 434 F. 3d 712 (2006). Simply put, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a judiciallycreated doctrine that bars lower federal courts from reviewing certain state court actions. If the
source of the alleged injury is the state court decision, then the Rooker-Feldman doctrine will apply
2
to divest the district court of jurisdiction. See Hoblock v. Albany County Bd of Elections, 422 F.3d
77, 87 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Further, consideration of Plaintiff s claims would require the undersigned to reconsider prior
state court decisions, including orders and judgments determining real property rights. As Plaintiffs
allegations are "inextricably intertwined" with decisions of Maryland state courts, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction of these claims under Rooker-Feldman.
shall be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C.
S
I
Therefore, the cause of action
1257. Further, any state court decision is entitled to both issue
and claim preclusive effect. See 28 U.S.C.
S
1738, Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd OfEduc.,
465 U.S. 75, 84-86 (1984). Federal courts must give the state judgments the same effect as would
the courts of the judgment state?
Consequently, insofar as Plaintiff is seeking to re-file her
concluded state court complaint against CitiMortgage, Inc. here, any state court judgment against
Plaintiff bars her from seeking review over the matter in this court.
Further, the doctrine of res judicata involving federal court litigation encompasses two
concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel. See In re Varat Enters., Inc.,
81 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996). (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90,94 (1980)). The doctrine
contemplates, at a minimum, that courts not be required to adjudicate nor defendants to address
The Supreme Court held in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) and District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983) (lithe Rooker-Feldman doctrine") that a
United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments ofa state court injudicial proceedings
except for general constitutional challenges and reviews pursuant to an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The United States Supreme Court is the only federal court that may review a state court's judicial decisions.
See 28 U.S.C. S 1257(a).
In Maryland res judicata applies when there has been a final judgment on the merits, there exists
identity of the parties or privies, and the causes of action in successive suits are the same. See Snell v. Mayor
of Havre de Grace, 837 F.2d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, under Maryland law collateral estoppel applies
if the issue decided in prior adjudication is identical to issue in the present action, there was a prior final
judgment on the merits, and the party against whom the decision is being used was party to the prior action.
O'Reilly v. County Bd. of Appeals, 900 F.2d 789, 791 (4th Cir. 1990).
3
successive actions arising out of the same transaction and asserting breach of the same duty. See
Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556,563 (5th Cir. 1983). For a prior judgment to bar
an action on the basis of res judicata, the prior judgment must be final, on the merits, and rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with due process; the parties in the two actions
must be either identical or in privity; and the claim in the second action must be based upon the same
cause of action involved in the earlier proceeding. See Grausz v. Englander, 321 F.3d, 467, 472 (4th
Cir. 2003).
Federal courts and Maryland state courts have adopted the "transaction test" to determine the
th
identity of the causes of action. See Adkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 729 F.2d 974, 976 (4
Cir. 1984);
DeLeon v. Slear, 328 Md. 569,589-90 (Md. 1992). Under this test, claims are considered a part of
the same cause of action when they arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
In
determining whether the causes of action stem from the same transaction or series of connected
transactions, courts consider such pragmatic factors as "whether the facts are related in time, space,
origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit
conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage." See Restatement (Second)
of Judgments ~ 24(2) (1982). Claims may also arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions even if they involve different harms or different theories or measures of relief. Id.
Comparing Plaintiffs
prior District Court actions with the present suit, the Court finds
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same transactions or occurrences. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff
has once again raised allegations presented in earlier federal actions against CitiMortgage, Inc. The
res judicata implications of these facts are clear and the Court shall not revisit the claims raised
against Defendant in light of the estoppel effect of the prior ruling.
4
In sum, Plaintiff may not litigate anew claims previously dismissed by this court and the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Complaint shall be dismissed.
Date': April 1, 2014
PETER 1. MESSITTE
TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?