James A. Torchia v. State of FL Financial Inst., No. 05-15287 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-15287 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00110-CV-4-SPM-AK JAMES A. TORCHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND SECURITIES REGULATION, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (February 27, 2006) Before DUBINA, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James A. Torchia appeals the district court s dismissal of his declaratory judgment action on Rooker-Feldman doctrine grounds, as well as the district court s denial of his motion to amend his complaint. Because we agree that the RookerFeldman doctrine bars Torchia s claim, we affirm. The State of Florida s Office of Financial Regulation (the State ) brought Torchia before an administrative court to answer for his selling, as an unregistered dealer, unregistered securities, in violation of Florida Statutes § 517. The administrative hearing officer found that Torchia had violated the statute multiple times, and recommended fining him $120,000. Torchia appealed to Florida s Fourth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the administrative hearing officer s findings. Torchia then sought discretionary review from the Florida Supreme Court, which declined to hear his case. Torchia did not appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Four months later, Torchia filed this declaratory judgment action, alleging that Chapter 517 as applied in light of Chapter 626 is unconstitutionally vague. (R.-1 at 14 ¶34.); Torchia v. State of Fla., Office of Financial Regulation, 2005 WL 2007105 at *2 (11th Cir. 2005). The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, among other things, that based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion. The court also denied 2 Torchia s request for leave to amend his complaint to substitute an individual party for the State to avoid an Eleventh Amendment dismissal. Torchia now appeals. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine jurisdictionally bars federal district courts from reviewing state court decisions. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1522-23 (2005). This circuit has applied the RookerFeldman doctrine to hold that district courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to review claims not raised in state court, but inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466 (11th Cir. 1996). This application is limited by the further rule that a claim that the plaintiff had no opportunity to raise in state court cannot be barred by Rooker-Feldman. Id. at 467. In this case, as in Powell, Torchia s as-applied constitutional claims are inextricably intertwined with the state-law litigation that resulted in his fines. See id. If we decide that Section 517 of the Florida Statutes was unconstitutionally applied to Torchia, as he claims, we necessarily nullify the state court judgment that resulted in his fine under that section. It is clear that, under Florida law, Torchia should have brought his as-applied constitutional challenge as part of his state court litigation. See Key Haven Assoc. Enter. v. Board of Trustees, 427 So. 2d 153, 158 (Fla. 1982). Our conclusion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because 3 of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine moots the other issues presented by Torchia on this appeal. AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
