Angela v. Woodhull v. Rebecca Fierle ( 2013 )

Case: 13-12505 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12505
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00384-JA-KRS
ANGELA V. WOODHULL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
REBECCA FIERLE,
individually,
NANCY F. ALLEY,
Judge, individually,
JOHN D. GALLUZZO,
Judge, individually,
VICTOR HULSLANDER,
Judge, individually,
ANN MARIE GIORDANO GILDEN,
SHIRLEY MASCARELLA,
JOHN MASCARELLA,
individually, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Case: 13-12505 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 2 of 5
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 17, 2013)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, Angela Woodhull, appeals the district court’s order dismissing her
action for failure to state a claim. Because Woodhull’s complaint requires review
of state-court judgments, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider this case
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
order and remand for the district court to dismiss the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
I. Facts and Procedural Posture
This litigation concerns the guardianship and estate of Louise Falvo,
Woodhull’s mother. According to Woodhull’s complaint, Falvo owned an account
that was held in trust for Woodhull. (R. 1 at ¶39.) Over a period of approximately
six months, Falvo executed a series of documents transferring the beneficiary
designation of her financial accounts back and forth between Woodhull and
Defendants Shirley and John Mascarella. (R. 1 at ¶39, 40, 42, 52, 55, 65). After
these events, Defendant Judge Nancy Allen of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit
2
Case: 13-12505 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 3 of 5
Court in and for Seminole County, Florida froze Falvo’s accounts and appointed
Defendant Rebecca Fierle as Falvo’s Guardian. (R. 1 at ¶68, 69.) After a hearing,
Judge Allen ordered “the destruction of the beneficial interests” on Falvo’s
accounts. (R.1 at ¶82.) Woodhull appealed this order, among others, to Florida’s
Fifth District Court of Appeal. Woodhull v. Guardianship of Louise A. Falvo, 43
So. 3d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010). After briefing and oral argument, the
District Court of Appeal affirmed. Id.
In the meantime, Falvo died on July 21, 2008, and probate proceedings
commenced. (R.1 at ¶85, 88.) During the probate process, Defendant Judge
Victor Hulslander of the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Alachua County, Florida ordered that some of the funds previously designated in
trust for Woodhull be used to pay attorney and guardianship fees. (R. 1 at 93–99.)
Woodhull has appealed this order to Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in
Woodhull v. Mascarella, Case No. 1D13-536. The appeal is still pending.
Concurrent with the state-court appeal, Woodhull filed this case in federal
court with one federal claim—that the Defendants seized her property in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. (R. 1.) Woodhull also alleged various state-law claims
under supplemental jurisdiction. (Id.) Although Woodhull does not explain
precisely how the Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment, she seems to claim
that the Defendants violated Florida law by destroying the beneficiary designations
3
Case: 13-12505 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 4 of 5
on Falvo’s accounts—the same argument that was rejected by two Florida Circuit
Courts and one Florida District Court of Appeal. After providing the parties an
opportunity to respond, the federal district court dismissed the Fourth Amendment
claim with prejudice and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice. (R. 57.)
Woodhull appeals.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Woodhull contends that the district court erred by dismissing her
Fourth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim. However, before we reach
the merits of Woodhull’s appeal, we must consider the Defendants contention that
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars consideration of the Fourth Amendment claim
since it essentially seeks appellate review of the state-court proceedings.
Woodhull replies that she is not seeking review of any state-court judgments.
“The [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that precludes the
lower federal courts from reviewing state-court judgments.” Alvarez v. Attorney
Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). We apply
the doctrine 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 review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. (quoting
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct.
1517, 1521–22 (2005). The doctrine applies to cases that are “inextricably
4
Case: 13-12505 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 5 of 5
intertwined with the state-court judgment so that (1) the success of the federal
claim would effectively nullify the state-court judgment, or that (2) the federal
claim would succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the
issues.” Id. (citation omitted).
In this case, Woodhull complains of injuries caused by a state-court
judgment that she contends was wrong. These arguments were considered and
rejected by multiple Florida courts before the federal district court proceedings
commenced. Woodhull’s claim would succeed only to the extent that these state-
court decisions are wrong. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction in
this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
III. Conclusion
Review of this case, by the district court, is barred under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, the judgment below is vacated and we remand
with instructions that the district court dismiss the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTION.
5