United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is presently before the Court on defendant's
motion to dismiss [docket entries 5 and 6]. Plaintiffs have
filed a response in opposition. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion without a
hearing.
Plaintiffs
allege that the City of Algonac has wrongfully obtained a
state court order permitting it to demolish a house they
own[1]
at 121 Kenyon in Algonac, Michigan. Asserting claims of
“fraud, illegal taking of real estate, and tortious
interference with contractual relationship, ”
plaintiffs seek “an Injunction Barring [the
demolition], and to not be held responsible for any and all
Costs incurred by the City of Algonac, ” plus
reimbursement of “all Costs and Expenses.” Compl.
at unnumbered p. 6.
Defendant
has attached to its motion a copy of a default judgment it
obtained against plaintiffs on June 10, 2019, in St. Clair
County Circuit Court. Def.'s Ex. D. That judgment states:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a Default Judgment be,
and hereby is, entered against defendants Lorenza V. Lazur
and Philip J. Cataldo, Jr. and in favor of the Plaintiff City
of Algonac, affirming the orders of its Dangerous Buildings
Commission and City Council authorizing the demolition of any
structure located at 121 Kenyon Drive, Algonac, Michigan
48001 (the “Property”);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that a Judgment is entered
in favor of the Plaintiff City of Algonac in the amount of
the costs of enforcement and demolition incurred in this case
and authorizing a lien on the Property to the extent those
costs are unpaid by Defendants Lazur and Cataldo;
This
state court judgment, the authenticity of which plaintiffs do
not challenge, deprives this Court of jurisdiction to
entertain plaintiffs' complaint. Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, a federal court has no jurisdiction over a
complaint that challenges a state court judgment or the state
court proceedings associated therewith. As the Sixth Circuit
has stated,
[i]n District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206
(1983), the Supreme Court held that federal court review of
state court proceedings is jurisdictionally limited to the
Supreme Court of the United States by 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
See also Patmon v. Michigan Sup. Ct., 224 F.3d 504,
506 (6th Cir. 2000). We refer to this doctrine as the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See also Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed.
362 (1923). The Feldman Court stated that
“United States District Courts . . . do not have
jurisdiction . . . over challenges to state court decisions
in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even
if those challenges allege that the state court's action
was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may only be
had in this Court.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486,
103 S.Ct. 1303; see also Anderson v. Charter Township of
Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492 (6th Cir. 2001). In a more
recent decision, the Supreme Court restated the doctrine as
follows: “under [the 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
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, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994).
Tropf v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d
929, 936-37 (6th Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted). The instant
lawsuit is, in effect, nothing more than an improper
federal-court challenge to a state-court judgment. If
plaintiffs wish to challenge the state court's judgment,
they must pursue whatever remedies are available to them in
state court. They may not seek to overturn a state court
judgment by challenging it in a separate action in federal
court.
Additionally,
defendant correctly argues that the state-court judgment in
this matter is res judicata as to the City of Algonac's
claim that plaintiffs' house is a dangerous structure and
subject to demolition. Because that claim has been
conclusively decided against plaintiffs, they are barred from
litigating that claim again, whether in this Court or
elsewhere.
For
these reasons, the Court concludes that the complaint in this
matter must be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that
defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
---------
Notes:
[1] The complaint alleges that plaintiff
Lazur owns the house and that plaintiff Cataldo “has no
interest” in it, Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, but elsewhere
it alleges that demolition of the house “will result in
the loss of value to Plaintiff(s).” Id. ΒΆ
17. For present purposes, ...