Montgomery v. Brown et al
Filing
9
ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Relief; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 02/07/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 2:14-cv-00004-MR-DLH
NOVA MONTGOMERY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KERRIE A. BROWN,
)
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE; and
)
MATRESSA R. MORRIS,
)
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE, and
)
JOHN DOE’S 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc.
1], filed on February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order with Memoranda of Law in Support [Doc. 3],
filed on February 5, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Relief
[Doc. 8].
The Court will deny the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 3] and the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Relief [Doc. 8] and will sua sponte dismiss the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of certain property located
at 4613 Greenspire Road, Balsam, North Carolina (“the property”). [Doc. 1
at ¶ 9]. The Plaintiff alleges that she began to inquire into the beneficiary of
her payments against the real estate lien note regarding her property
several years ago, but she was not provided with a sufficient answer. [Id.
at ¶ 10]. The Plaintiff stopped making payments on the property. While
letters were exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Johnson & Freeman
law firm, the Plaintiff asserts that she never received the information she
was seeking. [Id. at ¶ 11-14].
On June 16, 2013, the unnamed defendant John Doe #1 petitioned
the Clerk of Superior Court of Jackson County, North Carolina (“the Clerk”)
to begin the foreclosure process on the property according to N.C.G.S. §
45-21.16, et seq. [Id. at ¶ 16]. The Plaintiff raised her concerns about the
“false, fraudulent and fictitious allegations and misrepresentations” which
she had allegedly received from the Defendants, but she claims that her
concerns were “entirely ignored.” [Id. at ¶ 17-20]. On November 15, 2013,
the Clerk entered an Order allowing the Defendant substitute trustees in
this action to proceed with foreclosure. The Plaintiff missed the appeal
deadline set by N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16(d)(1) after such Order was signed,
2
and later brought a Motion to Allow Appeal.
On January 16, 2014,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Appeal was denied by the Honorable Bradley B.
Letts of Jackson County, North Carolina. Additionally, the Plaintiff filed suit
in Jackson County, North Carolina on December 23, 2013 against the
Defendant substitute trustees, Resurgent Capital Services, LP, and Bank of
America Corporation, asserting claims for injunctive relief pursuant to
N.C.G.S. § 45-21.34 and for RESPA violation pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §
2605, in addition to moving to dismiss the foreclosure action and strike all
allegations and evidence against the Plaintiff. Judge Letts dismissed the
suit on January 24, 2014, opining that the Plaintiff had failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted and that the Plaintiff had failed to
join a necessary party. As of the hearing in this present matter, the Plaintiff
had not appealed from Judge Letts’ order, but the period for doing so had
not yet expired.
On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the current action in this Court,
asserting, inter alia, claims for deprivation of her due process rights in the
course of the foreclosure proceeding. [Doc. 1]. Further, the Plaintiff sought
injunctive relief, and on February 5, 2014, she moved for an emergency
temporary restraining order and for declaratory relief. [Id., Docs. 3, 8]. On
February 5, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., the property foreclosure sale took place in
3
Jackson County, North Carolina,1 and on February 5, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. this
matter was heard in this Court with regard to the Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Relief. [Docs. 3, 8].
II.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
A temporary restraining order is an “emergency procedure and is
appropriate only when the applicant is in need of immediate relief.” 11A
Charles Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2951 (2013).
A plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order must
establish that: (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in her favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
For the reasons discussed in further detail below, the Plaintiff has no
likelihood of success on the merits because this Court has no subject
matter jurisdiction over this case.2 Further, as it does not appear that the
foreclosure proceeding which is the subject of this action has in fact
1 Because the foreclosure sale took place on February 5, 2014, the upset bid period is still running such
that the Plaintiff can still contest the sale in a state court proceeding.
2
With regard to the likelihood of success on the merits, issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel may
also arise in this action due to prior state court decisions.
4
concluded with finality, the Plaintiff has not succeeded in demonstrating a
sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm.3 For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 3] is denied.
III.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States
ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009). “Thus, when
a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action, the action
must be dismissed.” Id. The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue
that may be raised at any time. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis,
Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). “If the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
In this action, the Plaintiff challenges the validity of foreclosure
proceedings of a North Carolina court.
Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, however, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the
Plaintiff’s claims.
The United States Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
appeals from state-court judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker
3
The appeal period with regard to two Jackson County, North Carolina state court orders in this action
has not yet closed.
5
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). As a corollary to this rule,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits “a party losing in state court . . .
from seeking what in substance would be an appellate review of the state
judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim
that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v.
De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
bars lower federal courts from considering not only issues raised and
decided in state courts, but also issues that are ‘inextricably intertwined’
with the issues that are before the state court.” Washington v. Wilmore,
407 F.3d 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486). As
the Fourth Circuit has explained, “if the state-court loser seeks redress in
the federal district court for the injury caused by the state-court decision,
his federal claim is, by definition, ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the statecourt decision, and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the federal district
court.” Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 719 (4th Cir. 2006).
The Supreme Court has cautioned that Rooker-Feldman is a “narrow
doctrine” which “is confined to cases of the kind from 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
6
those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Accordingly, pursuant to Exxon, the Court must
examine “whether the state-court loser who files suit in federal district court
seeks redress for an injury caused by the state-court decision itself. If he is
not challenging the state-court decision, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does
not apply.” Davani, 434 F.3d at 718 (footnote omitted); Moore v. Idealease
of Wilmington, 465 F.Supp.2d 484, 490 (E.D.N.C. 2006).
In the present case, the Plaintiff argues to this Court that the basis for
jurisdiction was that the state court had accepted the Defendants’ fraud in
the state court matter. Thus, the Plaintiff clearly seeks review of the state
court proceedings which allowed the foreclosure upon her property, as set
forth in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Doc. 1]. Because the Plaintiff does not
allege any injury independent of this state-court action but rather attempts
to frame her state-court action as one arising under federal question
jurisdiction through the invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 [Doc. 1], the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
If the
Plaintiff wishes to challenge the validity of the Jackson County District
Court’s orders, she must do so in the state courts.
7
Further, since this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this
case, this Court cannot grant the remedy of declaratory relief and must
deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Relief. [Doc. 8].
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 3] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory
Relief [Doc. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 7, 2014
8
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?