Mihai v. Lee et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; directing clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 1/21/2016. (c/m 1/21/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ELLEN L. LEE,
THE LA W OFFICES OF ELLEN L. LEE,
ELIEANA MIHAl, and
Civil Action No. TDC-15-1086
On April 15, 2015, Plaintiff Ovidiu Mihai ("Mr. Mihai") filed a Complaint against his
former wife, Elieana Mihai ("Ms. Mihai"); her divorce attorney, Ellen L. Lee, and Lee's law
firm, The Law Offices of Ellen L. Lee, LLC; and the attorney's paralegal, Daphne Hallas
alleging that, through their actions in state divorce proceedings
currently pending in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Defendants have
engaged in a conspiracy to defraud him in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. ~ 1962(c) (2012).1 Mr. Mihai identifies, but does not
name as defendants, several other individuals connected to the divorce proceedings in the Circuit
Court whom he believes to be part of this alleged RICO conspiracy, including Magistrate Lisa
Segal, who allegedly recommended irrational pendente lite awards; Judge Marielsa A. Bernard,
1 18 U.S.C. ~ 1964(c) provides civil remedies for "[a]ny person injured in his business or
property" through a violation of 18 U.S.C. ~ 1962.
awards without reading the court file; and Judge Robert A.
Greenberg, who allegedly improperly awarded attorney's fees to Lee.
Mr. Mihai alleges that Defendants are engaged in a scheme to "extort him into paying
unreasonable amounts of money" by initiating and pursuing "an extremely long and litigious
case in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of Maryland." Compi. ~~ 2,3.
He claims that the
scheme involves "creating a false narrative" for the court, including deliberately arranging for
Ms. Mihai to lose her job in order to convince the court to grant attorney's fees in her favor and
at Mr. Mihai's
Id. ~~ 3, 22.
The Defendants also allegedly plotted to secure
"unreasonably high" pendente lite awards, consisting of garnishment for over a year of Mr.
Mihai's wages and attorneys'
escrow account that has left him "defenseless
and subject to
continuous litigation." Id. ~ 26. Through the four years of litigation, including two trials and an
appeal, the court has awarded over $75,000 in attorney's fees against him. Mr. Mihai claims that
Ms. Mihai and her legal team have obtained these pendente lite and attorney's
through unfair litigation tactics, such as excessive numbers of amended complaints, discovery
requests and motions, making false statements in court proceedings, and refusing to engage in
mediation. He alleges that Magistrate Segal is a friend of Lee and a "co-conspirator" by virtue of
her recommendation that the court approve the pendente lite awards. Id. ~ 11. Mr. Mihai asserts
that Defendants' "plot is to continue to litigate indefinitely" and to shift the cost burden of that
litigation onto him. Id. ~ 29.
In the Complaint, Mr. Mihai alleges seven causes of action: (l) a RICO violation, under
1962(c); (2) RICO conspiracy, under 18 U.S.C.
1962(d); (3) fraud; (4) tortious
breach of contract by Ms. Mihai and Lee; (5) trespass to chattels; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7)
In response, Lee, the Law Office of Ellen Lee, LLC, and Hallas (collectively,
the "Lee Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss in which they assert, in part, that this court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Mr. Mihai's claims under the Rooker-Feldman
They are correct.
"Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, a 'party losing in state court is barred from
seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States
American Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)). This doctrine applies both to
final and interlocutory orders of state courts. Brown & Root, Inc. v. Breckenridge, 211 F.3d 194,
199 (4th Cir. 2000). The doctrine bars "lower federal courts from considering not only issues
raised and decided in the state courts, but also issues that are 'inextricably intertwined' with the
issues that were before the state court." Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 279 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983)).
issue is "inextricably intertwined" when it "was not actually decided by the state court but where
success on the ... claim depends upon a determination that the state court wrongly decided the
issues before it." Brown & Root, Inc., 211 F.3d at 198. Because the doctrine is jurisdictional,
courts "are obliged to address it before proceeding" to the merits of a given case. Friedman's,
Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2002).
Here, although the Complaint is styled as a RICO action, Mr. Mihai is not, in substance,
presenting an independent RICO claim against Ms. Mihai and her litigation team. Rather, he is
seeking to revisit Defendants' state court victories. The core of Mr. Mihai's RICO and common
law causes of action is his claim that Defendants were not entitled to the state court's pendente
lite awards and attorney's fees approved by the state court.
He even labels the state court
magistrate and judge responsible for these rulings as co-conspirators, seeks an injunction against
the state court to bar it from conducting further proceedings in the divorce litigation, and requests
the transfer of his divorce case to federal court. These claims squarely seek federal court review
of rulings made by a state court, in contravention of the Rooker-Feldman
Root, Inc., 211 F.3d at 201 ("[W]hen a party sues in federal district court to readjudicate the
same issues decided in the state court proceedings, that action is in essence an attempt to obtain
direct review of the state court decision in the lower federal courts in contravention of RookerFeldman.").
To the extent that Mr. Mihai's seeks to recover for not just the state court awards
against him, but also for his own costs of litigation, those claims are "inextricably intertwined"
with the state court rulings, because his claim that the litigation is "fraudulent" and that he has
been forced to bear the costs of "baseless litigation," can only succeed "upon a determination
that the state court wrongly decided" the issues before it. See id. at 198.
Although none allege the same cause of action as in the divorce proceedings, each of
counts in the Complaint are linked, in whole or in part, to the rulings of the state court. In Count
I, alleging a RICO violation, 18 U.S.C. ~ 1962(c), and Count II, alleging a RICO conspiracy, 18
U.S.C. ~ 1962(d), Mr. Mihai asserts that Defendants have engaged in a criminal enterprise to use
"lies, fraud, threats, and official bias," to coerce him into paying "irrational and unsustainable
amounts of money," and have used a biased process and personal relationships, including with a
court magistrate, to obtain "irrational awards" against Mr. Mihai, including attorney's fees. Id.
~~ 57, 69, 83.
misrepresented, omitted, and/or concealed material facts in their pleadings" to "obtain favorable
rulings" from the court. Id. ~~ 85, 88. In Count IV, alleging tortious breach of contract, Mr.
Mihai complains that Ms. Mihai and Lee improperly breached their contract with each other by
obtaining the attorney's fees awards from the court. Id. ~ 93. In Count V, alleging trespass to
chattels, he asserts that Defendants have interfered with his use and enjoyment of his own funds
through the fraudulent lawsuit. Id. ~ 96. Count VI, alleging unjust enrichment, claims that
Defendants "seek to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars" from him through "a fraudulent
and lengthy litigation process" and asks that the divorce case be transferred to federal court. Id.
~~ 100-101. Count VII, alleging a civil conspiracy, requests that this Court award Mr. Mihai "a
preliminary and permanent injunction" against Defendants that would stop them from
"commencing, or advancing in any way, directly or indirectly" his state divorce proceedings, and
again requests that the divorce proceedings be transferred to federal court. Id. ~ 107. These
claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the state court proceeding because they can only
succeed "upon a determination that the state court wrongly decided" certain award decisions or
the case overall. See Brown & Root, Inc., 211 F.3d at 198; McNeil v. Maryland, No. DKC 112495, 2012 WL 3643899, at *3-7 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2012) (finding that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine barred the district court from hearing a case in which the plaintiff alleged a conspiracy
among the plaintiffs ex-wife, attorneys, judicial officers, and others in state court family law
proceedings, because the plaintiff s claims were dependent on assessment of the decisions of the
state court); Moyer v. Rudolph, No. 96-2539, 1996 WL 243647, at *1-3 (B.D. Pa. May 6, 1996)
(holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred consideration of a case alleging a conspiracy
between the plaintiffs wife, attorneys, and court officials to violate his civil rights in family law
The fact that Mr. Mihai has sued the opposing party in his divorce litigation rather than
the state court, and that he has re-cast his claims under different legal theories such as RICO,
does not alter this conclusion. In Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Virginia, 122 F.3d 192 (4th
Cir. 1997), the Democratic Party of Virginia ("DPV") obtained injunctions in state court,
pursuant to Virginia election laws, barring the Virginia Leadership Council ("VLC") from
distributing voter guides relating to candidates for elected office. Id. at 195. The VLC sued the
DPV in federal court, alleging a 42 U.S.C.
1983 violation and various state law claims based
on the theory that the legal restrictions on distribution constituted an unconstitutional
restraint. Id. at 196. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that
even though the suit was against the opposing party and was "refashion[ ed]" under a different
1983, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied to bar the claim because it was, in
essence, an attack on the state court judgment and was "inextricably intertwined" with the state
court decisions to issue the injunctions. Id. at 202-03. Likewise, Mr. Mihai's recasting of his case
as a RICO claim against Defendants does not overcome Rooker-Feldman when he is attacking
the state court rulings.
in this suit, Mr. Mihai essentially
proceedings in this Court-so
seeks to re-litigate
his state divorce
much so that he seeks an injunction against further activity in the
state court and transfer of the proceedings to federal court-the
this Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Mihai's claims?
Reliable Ins. Co., 336 F.3d at 316 ("A litigant may not circumvent the jurisdictional mandates
by instituting a federal action which, although not styled as an appeal,
amounts to nothing more than an attempt to seek review of the state court's decision by a lower
Mr. Mihai' s request to move his divorce proceedings from state to federal court also fails
because this Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over any such case. Ankenbrandt
v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (reiterating that "the domestic relations exception" to
federal jurisdiction "divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child
custody decrees"). Similarly, his request for an injunction to halt his state divorce proceedings
cannot succeed because the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.c. 9 2283, expressly bars federal courts
from "grant[ing] an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court" except when expressly
authorized to do so by Congress, a situation not present here.
federal court.") (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Lee Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF
NO.7, is GRANTED.
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the
claims against Ms. Mihai must also be dismissed.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The case is
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Date: January 21,2015
THEODORE D. C
United States Distric
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?