Riding et al v. United Consumer Credit Union et al

Filing 5

Order dismissing case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed on 9/25/2024 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Law Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
ALICE MARIE RIDING and
ROBIN RIDING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED CONSUMER CREDIT UNION,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:24-cv-00617-DGK

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
This pro se lawsuit arises from a non-judicial foreclosure of residential property located at
8409 East 116th Street, Grandview, Missouri 64134 (the “Property”). Plaintiffs’ complaint
challenges the foreclosure and subsequent sale of the Property based on Defendants’ alleged
violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed without payment of fees, ECF No.
1, and their motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear this dispute pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, the lawsuit is dismissed without
prejudice.
The threshold question for the Court in this case and in every case is whether it possesses
jurisdiction to hear the dispute; that is, whether the Court is authorized or possesses the power to
adjudicate the lawsuit.

Under Younger abstention, a federal district court cannot exercise

jurisdiction over a case when “(1) there is an ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates
important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise any relevant federal
questions in the state proceeding.” Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation

omitted). If Younger abstention applies, “the district court generally must dismiss the action.”
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1251 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
In the present case, Plaintiffs have three ongoing state proceedings in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, concerning the foreclosure and sale of the Property. See All Pro 2 LLC
v. Alice Riding, et al., No. 2416-CV15243 (unlawful detainer); Alice M Riding v. United Consumer
Credit Union, et al., No. 2416- CV24763 (unlawful foreclosure); Alice M Riding v. United
Consumer Credit Union, et al., No, 2416- CV24756 (unlawful foreclosure).

These state

proceedings raise the same claims and arguments presented here. Further, these proceedings
implicate an important state interest, namely unlawful detainer which is governed by Missouri
statute. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 534.030; see also Boyer v. Scott Bros. Inv. Corp., No. 4:11CV1173
HEA, 2011 WL 3847412, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2011) (finding unlawful detainer action
implicated an important state interest under Younger).

Finally, Plaintiffs have adequate

opportunity to raise her federal claims in the state proceeding. In fact, they have already raised
them in each case. 1 Accordingly, Younger abstention is appropriate here.
This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 25, 2024

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
.

Further, Plaintiffs raised these arguments in a separate quiet title action filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri. See Alice M Riding v. United Consumer Credit Union, et al., No. 2416-CV11921. That case was dismissed
without prejudice because Plaintiffs are not licensed to practice law in the State of Missouri and purported to represent
the trust which holds title to the Property. See id.

1

2