Sanders v. Branch Banking & Trust
Filing
5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, Motions Denied: 3 MOTION to Stay filed by Brenda K Sanders. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRENDA K. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NUMBER: 13-14196
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
On October 2, 2013, Brenda Sanders filed a pro se Complaint against Branch
Banking and Trust Company (“Branch Banking”). In her Complaint, Sanders says: (1)
Branch Banking fraudulently obtained ownership of property located at 115 Sand Bar
Lane in Detroit, Michigan (the “Property”); (2) she is a tenant at the Property; and (3)
Branch Banking is attempting to evict her from the Property. Sanders asks the Court to
stay a Michigan 36th District Court summary proceedings action and determine the
proper owner of the Property. On October 11, 2013, Sanders filed an Emergency
Motion for a Stay of Proceedings and/or Temporary Restraining Order.
Sanders’ motion relates to the eviction action against her in Michigan 36th
District Court. See Case No. 12-307887-LT (J. Zelenak, sitting by assignment). After
Sanders stopped making rental payments for the Property, PFG Mortgage Trust I
(“PFG”) filed the state court action to evict her. In October 2013, Branch Banking
replaced PFG as plaintiff. See Exhibit E to Sanders’ Emergency Motion.
On October 2, 2013, the State Court entered a judgment against Sanders that
“resolves the last pending claim and closes this case.” Id. The state court judgment
also indicates that Branch Banking is entitled to possession of the Property and is
entitled to back rent from Sanders. Id.
Sanders asks the Court to: (1) enjoin Branch Banking from seeking and
executing an eviction order; and (2) determine the true owner of the Property.
Sanders’ Complaint is DISMISSED. Additionally, Sanders’ Emergency Motion to
Stay the state court proceeding is DENIED.
First, Sanders alleges no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. She does
not allege a violation of a federal right or federal statute. Likewise, Sanders does not
allege complete diversity between the parties. In addition, Sanders fails to allege that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. On this basis alone, the Court must dismiss Sanders’
complaint.
Furthermore, Sanders previously filed a similar action in this Court. See Case
No. 11-cv-13884-GER-MJH. In September 2011, after PFG filed the action in state
court, Sanders filed an action in this Court against PFG to stop her eviction. Id. In that
action, Sanders alleged a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.,
as well as various state law claims. On February 29, 2012, the Court dismissed with
prejudice Sanders’ claim under the Fair Housing Act for failing to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); the Court also dismissed Sanders’ state law claims – after
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See Sanders v. PFG Mortg.
Trust I, 2012 WL 666799 (E.D. Mich. Feb 29, 2012). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the
2
Court’s Order dismissing Sanders’ action. See Case No. 11-cv-13884, Dkt # 24.
Accordingly, state court is the correct forum for Sanders to assert the state law claims.
Finally, according to the Rooker/Feldman Doctrine, federal district courts do not
have jurisdiction to review state court judgments; that review rests only with the
Supreme Court. Gottfried v. Medical Planning Servs., 142 F.3d 326, 330 (6th Cir.
1998)(“[L]ower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and
decided in state court; only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct
state court judgments.”). Therefore, based on the 36th District Court’s October, 2, 2013
judgment, this Court cannot review, or interfere with, the state court’s adjudication of the
underlying issues.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Sanders’ Emergency Motion for a Stay of Proceedings and/or Temporary
Restraining Order is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: October 21, 2013
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Brenda K. Sanders by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on October 21, 2013.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk
3
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?