Godwin v. Senior Garden Apartments et al

Filing 198

ORDER - The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore dismisses the claims in this action without prejudice. It is therefore ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. [126 ]) is denied as moot. It is further ordered that Plaintiff Victoria-Joy Godwin's motion to strike (ECF No. 149 ) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/14/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 9

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

VICTORIA-JOY GODWIN,

Case No. 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
SENIOR GARDEN APARTMENTS, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Pro se Plaintiff Victoria-Joy Godwin filed an 87-page Fourth Amended Complaint,

13

alleging several claims against multiple Defendants arising from Godwin’s eviction from

14

her apartment in September 2017. (ECF No. 87 (“FAC”).) Defendants Senior Garden

15

Apartments (“SGA”), Russell Ricciardelli, Steven Ramirez, and Edward Kania have filed

16

a motion for summary judgment and request Godwin be declared a “vexatious litigant.”

17

(ECF No. 126.) In response, Godwin filed a motion to strike Defendants’ motion. (ECF

18

No. 149.)1 Because there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the

19

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court will deny the parties’ motions as moot.

20

II.

BACKGROUND

21

A.

22

Tenant Victoria-Joy Godwin entered into a one-year residential lease agreement

23

for a unit at SGA on June 1, 2016. (ECF No. 126-1.) Over a year later, on August 23,

24

2017, landlord Russell Ricciardelli filed a complaint against Godwin for a no-cause

25

summary eviction with the Justice Court of Clark County, Nevada (“Justice Court”). (ECF

26

No. 126-3 (Case No. 17E019770).) Ricciardelli’s complaint was later denied as moot on

27

September 29, 2017. (ECF No. 126-4 at 2.)

28

1The

Summary Eviction

Court, having reviewed Godwin’s motion to strike, will construe her motion
more appropriately as a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 9

1

On September 14, 2017, Ricciardelli had also filed a second summary eviction

2

complaint against Godwin but for nonpayment with the same Justice Court. (ECF No.

3

126-7 at 3-4 (Case No. 17E021987).) Godwin filed an answer. (ECF No. 126-6.) She

4

opposed the summary eviction on the grounds that she withheld paying rent due in part

5

to Ricciardelli’s failure to fix the “essential services” problems in her apartment. (Id. at 2.)

6

She additionally asserted Ricciardelli discriminated against her in violation of the Fair

7

Housing Act and Nevada laws, and Ricciardelli retaliated against her for having engaged

8

in protected activities. (Id. at 3.) Godwin also stated Ricciardelli was given noticed on April

9

10, 2017, about “a plethora of sexual harassment incidents and failed to . . . eliminate the

10

problem.” (Id. at 6.) However, on September 25, 2017, the Justice Court entered an order

11

for summary eviction against Godwin. (ECF No. 126-7 at 2.)

12

Godwin filed an appeal to the District Court of Clark County, Nevada (“District

13

Court”). (ECF No. 126-8 at 3-9 (Case No. A-17-762628-A).) On October 19, 2017, the

14

court denied Godwin’s appeal because she had not presented any valid grounds for an

15

appeal. (ECF No. 126-9 at 2-4 (“Appeal Decision”).) The case was remanded to the

16

Justice Court. (Id.)

17

B.

First State Action

18

Prior to the Appeal Decision, on October 9, 2017, Godwin filed a complaint for

19

declaratory judgment against Ricciardelli and SGA in the same District Court, appearing

20

to challenge the eviction proceedings and related events. (ECF No. 126-10 at 5-30 (Case

21

No. A-17-762739-C (“First State Action”)).) Godwin asserted the following claims: (1)

22

sexual harassment; (2) hostile environment sexual harassment; (3) sexual harassment

23

discrimination; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of

24

emotional distress; and (6) First Amendment violation. (Id. at 20-28.) Godwin alleged the

25

Justice Court violated her religious freedom rights when it set a hearing on a two-day holy

26

celebration she observed. (Id.; ECF No. 87 at 23.) Godwin also alleged Ricciardelli

27

retaliated against her for reporting the harassment by filing “all forms of summary process”

28

and had created a “seriously hostile environment.” (ECF No. 126-10 at 11-12.)
2

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 9

1

On February 22, 2018, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of

2

Ricciardelli and SGA. (Id. at 2-3.) The court stated the relief Godwin sought had already

3

been denied in the Appeal Decision, and therefore her claims were “barred under the

4

doctrine of res judicata.” (Id.) Godwin subsequently filed an appeal to the Nevada

5

Supreme Court, which initially transferred her appeal to the Nevada Court of Appeals, but

6

later denied Godwin’s petition for review on May 10, 2019.2 In the interim, the Nevada

7

Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment and denied Godwin’s appeal.3 It

8

noted Godwin failed to present her argument against the dismissal of her sexual

9

harassment and discrimination causes of action and therefore, she had waived such

10

arguments. See note 2, at 3 n.3.

11

C.

Second State Action

12

On the same day as the First State Action, Godwin filed a “complaint for injunctive

13

relief/tro filed concurrently with request for setting aside summary eviction and declaratory

14

judgment” against the Justice Court, Ricciardelli, and SGA in the same District Court.

15

(ECF No. 126-11 at 2 (Case No. A-17-762740-C (“Second State Action”)).) Godwin

16

alleged the Justice Court granted the “landlord the permission to violate the law” and that

17

the Justice Court and the hearing master lacked judicial immunity. (Id. at 3.)

18

On March 23, 2018, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of

19

Ricciardelli and SGA. (Id. at 8-10.) The District Court concluded that summary judgment

20

was appropriate as claim preclusion prevented Godwin from re-litigating a claim

21

previously decided by the Justice Court and District Court on appeal. (Id. at 9.) It further

22

stated Godwin’s “claims have already been addressed and denied in previous

23

proceedings.” (Id. at 10.)

24
25
26
27
28

2See

Godwin v. Senior Garden Apartments, Case No. 75623, Doc. Nos. 18-43054,
19-20567 (Nev. Nov. 2, 2018, May 10. 2019), https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/How_Do_I
/Find_a_Case/.
3See

Godwin v. Senior Garden Apartments, Case No. 75623-COA, Doc. No. 1904012 (Nev. App. Ct. Jan. 25, 2019), https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/How_Do_I/Find_a_
Case/.
3

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 4 of 9

1

Similar to the First State Action, Godwin then filed an appeal to the Nevada

2

Supreme Court, which initially transferred her appeal to the Nevada Court of Appeals, but

3

later denied Godwin’s petition for review on May 10, 2019.4 In the interim, the Nevada

4

Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment on the basis that claim preclusion

5

was correctly applied and denied Godwin’s appeal.5

6

D.

Federal Action

7

On August 14, 2017, Godwin initiated this federal action. (ECF No. 1-1.) Nearly

8

three years later, on August 18, 2020, Godwin filed her FAC. (ECF No. 87.)6 Godwin’s

9

87-page FAC alleges numerous Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act, operated a

10

racketeering scheme, and engaged in a civil conspiracy using state court personnel to

11

intimidate Godwin. (Id.) She states that she suffers from severe and enduring emotional

12

distress, which is a result of Defendants’ acts or failures to act. (Id. at 48.)

13

Godwin alleges in her FAC seven claims: (1) sexual harassment; (2) hostile

14

environment sexual harassment; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4)

15

negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) defamation; (6) racketeering; and (7) civil

16

conspiracy. (Id. at 42-86.)

17

In Claim 1 (sexual harassment), Godwin alleges “[t]he wrongful conduct . . . of

18

Defendants, including all who allowed the enforcement of a void judgment which covertly

19

‘condoned’ the violation of State laws prohibiting retaliatory evictions for reporting sexual

20

harassment, was malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent in nature[.]” (Id. at 43.)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4See

Godwin v. Justice Ct. of Clark Cnty., Case No. 75624, Doc. Nos. 18-43055,
19-20573 (Nev. Nov. 2, 2018, May 10. 2019), https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/How_Do_I
/Find_a_Case/.
5See

Godwin v. Justice Ct. of Clark Cnty., Case No. 75624-COA, Doc. No. 1904010 (Nev. App. Ct. Jan. 25, 2019), https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/How_Do_I/Find_a_
Case/.
6The

Court again notes that it finds it difficult to decipher Godwin's allegations and
the factual basis for her claims is somewhat confusing. Although the Court has raised the
issue of clarity before (see ECF Nos. 42 at 2, 36 at 3), Godwin's claims require the Court
to construe them as stated herein.
4

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 5 of 9

1

In Claim 2 (hostile environment sexual harassment), Godwin alleges “[a]ll

2

Defendants acted with extreme indifference to [her] right to petition the landlord for

3

redress directly, and . . . [her] rights to property being safe from illegal seizure under the

4

color of law.” (Id. at 45.)

5

In Claim 3 (intentional infliction of emotional distress), Godwin alleges the “actions

6

of all Defendants as to sexual harassment, and for discrimination inherent in a retaliatory

7

eviction and for abuse of process establishes intentional infliction of emotional distress[.]”

8

(Id. at 45-46.) She further alleges her “throat constricts when prompted to discuss the

9

betrayal of those attorneys and judges authorized to work in the courtroom for the purpose

10

of dispensing justice.” (Id. at 48.)

11

In Claim 4 (negligent infliction of emotional distress), Godwin alleges “Defendants

12

guaranteed that such harm would come to [her]” by “neglecting to review the records and

13

refusing to verify [her] evidence from a higher court.” (Id. at 50.) Additionally, she alleges

14

Defendants “[n]eglecting and/or refusing to report court personal who strayed from lawful

15

process” harmed her. (Id.)

16

In Claim 5 (defamation), Godwin alleges attorney Edward Kania “denigrated” her

17

to the District Court when he implied she was a vexatious litigant, and when he asserted

18

in his summary judgment motion on December 12, 2017, that “there was no facts in

19

disputed as grounds for summary judgment[.]” (Id. at 52.) Godwin further states the “intent

20

to tarnish becomes obvious when the records show the first lawsuit was the appeal which

21

remanded the action [Kania] filed unlawfully.” (Id.)

22

In Claim 6 (racketeering), Godwin alleges Ricciardelli and Kania were part of a

23

fraud scheme by “misrepresent[ing]” to the Justice Court that Godwin “would not pay rent

24

when [they] knew the falsity of that represented, made in an affidavit to the Justice Court.”

25

(Id. at 56.) Godwin further alleges Ricciardelli compelled Steven Ramirez to recruit

26

Godwin into “joining a white-slave ring” but Ricciardelli made “the misrepresentation

27

material to the summary eviction” by alleging no facts were in dispute. (Id. at 56-57.)

28

///
5

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 6 of 9

1

In Claim 7 (civil conspiracy), Godwin alleges “[e]ach Defendant ignored court

2

records expressly showing that [she] was extorted for sex and evicted in a secret, second

3

hearing to retaliate against [her] for reporting the sexual extortion to [the Department of

4

Housing and Urban Development].” (Id. at 68.) She further alleges “[e]ach Defendant

5

obtained an illegal objective either from the fruit of undue influence or by concealment of

6

the illegal hearing[.]” (Id.)

7

III.

DISCUSSION

8

Defendants make several arguments that summary judgment should be granted

9

in their favor as issues raised in this action have already been adjudicated. (ECF No. 126

10

at 1, 8-16.) Godwin appears to counter she should not “avail herself of the legal process

11

authorized in the statutory courts.” (ECF No. 149 at 2.) Because the Court finds, sua

12

sponte, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court

13

will not reach the merits of this case.

14

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction

15

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,

16

cl. 1; see also, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

17

However, federal courts are also prohibited from exercising subject matter jurisdiction

18

over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment under the Rooker-

19

Feldman doctrine. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004)

20

(citing Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)). The doctrine evolved

21

from two United States Supreme Court cases from which the doctrine’s name is derived.

22

See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

23

U.S. 462 (1983).

24

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is confined to cases . . . brought by state-court

25

losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the

26

district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of

27

those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284

28

(2005). The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] federal district court dealing with a suit
6

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 7 of 9

1

that is, in part, a forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court must

2

refuse to hear the forbidden appeal. As part of that refusal, it must also refuse to decide

3

any issue raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the

4

state court in its judicial decision.” Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005)

5

(quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003)).

6

Here, Godwin filed her First and Second State Actions on October 9, 2017. In her

7

First State Action, she brought six claims—four of which are identical to claims brought in

8

this action7—against Ricciardelli and SGA. The state District Court granted summary

9

judgment in favor of the opposing party on res judicata grounds, but Godwin nonetheless

10

appealed. On appeal, the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment

11

on January 25, 2019. It made clear Godwin waived her arguments regarding her sexual

12

harassment and discrimination related claims by failing to present them in her appeal.

13

Thereafter, on May 10, 2019, the Nevada Supreme Court denied her petition for review.

14

While Godwin initiated this action on August 14, 2017, she did not file her FAC

15

until August 18, 2020—well after a final judgment was rendered in the First and Second

16

Sate Actions. Because her claims—sexual harassment, hostile environment sexual

17

harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of

18

emotional distress—were decided in the First State Action and are identical to four of the

19

seven claims in her FAC, the Court finds Godwin is merely seeking a forbidden de facto

20

appeal from a state court decision. Such an appeal is prohibited under the Rooker-

21

Feldman doctrine. See Doe, 415 F.3d at 1042 (explaining that a federal district court must

22

refuse to hear a forbidden appeal of a state court decision under Rooker-Feldman).

23

However, the FAC includes three additional claims of defamation, racketeering,

24

and civil conspiracy (ECF No. 87 at 51-86), which were not alleged in her First or Second

25

State Actions. But these three claims—similar to the four identical claims discussed

26

above—are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decisions that summary eviction

27
28

7Those

claims are sexual harassment, hostile environment sexual harassment,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
7

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 8 of 9

1

for nonpayment against Godwin was proper. In Claim 5 (defamation), Godwin alleges

2

Kania denigrated and tarnished her by implying she was a vexatious litigant and falsely

3

stating there were no disputed grounds when the record showed her summary eviction

4

appeal was remanded to the Justice Court. See supra Claim 5 at 5. In Claim 6

5

(racketeering), Godwin alleges Ricciardelli and Kania engaged in a fraud scheme by

6

misrepresenting in summary eviction proceedings that Godwin did not pay rent.

7

Riccardelli further made a misrepresentation when he alleged no material facts were in

8

dispute. See supra Claim 6 at 5. In Claim 7 (civil conspiracy), Godwin alleges all

9

Defendants ignored court records showing she was evicted in a secret hearing and

10

Defendants “obtained an illegal objective either from the fruit of undue influence or by

11

concealment of the illegal hearing.” See supra Claim 7 at 5-6.

12

The Court finds these three claims, addition to the four identical claims, are claims

13

that Godwin suffered harm because of the state judgments in the First and Second State

14

Actions that summary eviction was properly entered against Godwin. See Noel, 341 F.3d

15

at 1163 (articulating one kind of case the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids is one where

16

“the federal plaintiff may complain of a legal injury cause by a state court judgment, based

17

on an allegedly erroneous legal ruling, in a case in which the federal plaintiff was one of

18

the litigants.”). As such, Godwin is seeking relief from those state judgments which are

19

barred by Rooker-Feldman. The Court thus finds, sua sponte, it lacks subject matter

20

jurisdiction over this action. See Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982,

21

985 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

22

without violating due process). Accordingly, the parties’ motions are denied as moot.

23

IV.

In sum, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The

24
25

CONCLUSION

Court therefore dismisses the claims in this action without prejudice.
It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

26
27

126) is denied as moot.

28

///
8

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 198 Filed 09/14/21 Page 9 of 9

1
2

It is further ordered that Plaintiff Victoria-Joy Godwin’s motion to strike (ECF No.
149) is denied as moot.

3

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

4

DATED THIS 14th Day of September 2021.

5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9