During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

CEB Prac. Guide § 2A.57 -- Defenses -- Collateral Estoppel -- The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Grant v. Unifund CCR Partners, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 379911 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Snyder granted summary judgment based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  A copy of the decision is here.   The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to “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… Read More

In Santos v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2012 WL 216398 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Davila found that an FDCPA claim arising out of a debt collector’s failure to honor a settlement agreement in an underlying debt collection action was not protected by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the litigation privilege.  The facts were as follows.  Santos became delinquent on a consumer credit card… Read More

In Howard v. RJF Financial, LLC, 2012 WL 170904 (D.Ariz. 2012), Judge Snow held that the Rooker-Feldman ­doctrine prohibits a federal court from re-considering under the FDCPA a debt collector’s filing of a state court collection action on a debt that otherwise would have been barred by the applicable statute of limitations on such debt.   There is no issue… Read More

In Greenberg v. Hunt and Henriques, 2011 WL 4639833 (C.D.Cal. 2011) Judge Nguyen found a consumer collaterally estopped from pursuing an FDCPA case in federal court based on the improper filing and prosecution to judgment of a state court collection action.  The district court found that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped to challenge the state court action, and that the… Read More

In Cannon v. Spokane Merchants Ass'n, 2011 WL 3754697 (E.D.Wash. 2011), Judge Suko found an absence of federal jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to hear Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim based on the manner in which the debt collector had obtained the underlying state court judgment on the debt.   The Ninth Circuit has since held that Rooker–Feldman does still apply to… Read More

In Martinez v. CACH, LLC, 2011 WL 2560251 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw rejected a debt collector’s Rooker-Feldman argument.  Further, Judge Sabraw rejected the argument that a Rule 68 offer mooted the class-action proceedings because the net worth requirement of a class-action under the FDCPA was not met due to alter ego allegations.    Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred debt… Read More

In Weldon v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2011 WL 902018 (S.D.Ind. 2011), Judge Magnus-Stinson addressed the intersection between the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata with regard to a debt collector filing suit on a time-barred debt in state court.  Judge Magnus-Stinson held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction nor did res judicata provide the debt… Read More

In Bryant v. Gordon & Wong Law Group, P.C., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 339086 (E.D.Cal. 2010), Judge England barred Plaintiff's FDCPA claim under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, explaining:   The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine established the principle that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in substance, appeals from state court judgments. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);… Read More

Although we assume that their FDCPA classes are quite good, we report that a district court magistrate in Tennessee refused an in pro per Plaintiff's request for an order requiring defense counsel to attend FDCPA classes at a local law school.  The case arose in Livinston-Cross v. Bank of America, 2009 WL 1471126 (M.D.Tenn. 2009), where Judge Campbell relied on the… Read More

On May 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. 2008) applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar re-litigation in federal court of the propriety of a non-judicial foreclosure that had been stayed by the consumer's bankruptcy.  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims seeking… Read More

1 2 3