Froncek v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al, No. 2:2015cv00458 - Document 3 (M.D. Fla. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 2 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/3/2015. (MAB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Froncek v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MICHAEL E. FRONCEK, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:15-cv-458-FtM-29CM NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and ALBERTELLI LAW, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #2) filed on July 30, 2015. to enjoin the Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order foreclosure sale of his property. 1 Plaintiff contends that the sale should be cancelled because defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar) obtained the judgment of foreclosure from an unspecified state court in violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g). Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the RookerFeldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine “places limits on the subject matter jurisdiction of federal district courts and courts of appeal 1According to plaintiff, the foreclosure sale is currently scheduled for August 12, 2015. 2 See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Dockets.Justia.com over certain matters related to previous state court litigation.” Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2001). Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts cannot review state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state appellate courts or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme Court.” Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting rejection of those judgments.” district court review and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state court, but also to claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment if plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise those claims in the state proceedings. Goodman, 259 F.3d at 1332; Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir. 2000); Amos v. Glynn County Board of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1266 n.11 (11th Cir. 2003). A claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court adjudication when federal relief can only be predicted upon a finding that the state court was wrong. Goodman, 259 F.3d at 1332. Here, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is premised on his contention that the state court erred in issuing a judgment of foreclosure. Therefore, his claim is inextricably intertwined - 2 - with the state court proceedings. Court should prevent the Plaintiff contends that the foreclosure sale because Nationstar failed to comply with the loss mitigation procedures set forth in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). While the Court takes no position as to whether Nationstar’s alleged RESPA violations would be sufficient grounds to prevent foreclosure, plaintiff was free to present these arguments in the state court foreclosure proceeding and there is no evidence or allegation that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to do so. Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider foreclosure order. restraining order the propriety of the state court’s Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary will be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #2) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this August, 2015. Copies: Plaintiff - 3 - 3rd day of
]]>
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.
