Graham v. Savage ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50111 Document: 00516689009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50111
FILED
March 24, 2023
Kent Graham; Colette Savage, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Mark Savage; Michael McDonald; Vijay Mehta; Thomas
Gray, 10th Court of Appeal; Rex Davis, 10th Court of
Appeal; Lee Harris, Judge 66th Hill District Court,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:21-CV-151
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The facts underlying the original state court suit are complicated, but
in essence this case involves a family feud over an inheritance. The Savages
left a trust to their two children—Mark and Colette. After a few twists and
turns, Colette ended up in debt to Mark after he defended his half-brother’s
probate litigation on Colette’s behalf. In an attempt to repay Mark, Colette
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50111 Document: 00516689009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2023
signed a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust on six tracts of land.
Colette made a few payments, but eventually defaulted. Thereafter, Mark
initiated foreclosure proceedings on three of the six properties.
Colette has since filed multiple lawsuits in state court, as well as
lawsuits in at least two federal district courts challenging this promissory
note, deed of trust, and foreclosure. Both federal lawsuits challenge various
state court orders and seek relief from state court judgments.
The Northern District of California found that, at its core, Colette’s
lawsuit “amounts to a forbidden de facto appeal of state court decisions that
entered judgment against her in Defendant’s favor regarding a promissory
note she executed in Texas.” The district court concluded that such a
lawsuit was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Western District
of Texas agreed and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal courts of subject matter
jurisdiction in “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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 284 (2005). The district court properly dismissed Colette’s claims, as
they are inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment and
proceedings regarding this note, deed of trust, and foreclosure, so her lawsuit
is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.