Rooker-Feldman Even Bars Review of State Court Judgments that Are ‘Void,’ Circuit Says

February 6, 2024

Rooker-Feldman Even Bars Review of State Court Judgments that Are ‘Void,’ Circuit Says

A debtor has one bite at the apple to enforce discharge. Take your pick: state or federal court, but not both.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/Gilani.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Gilani v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (In re Gilani), 23-40477 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024)

Case Name

Gilani v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (In re Gilani)

Case Type

Consumer

Court

5th Circuit

Bankruptcy Tags

Bankruptcy Litigation

Venue/Jurisdiction

Consumer Bankruptcy

Discharge/Dischargeability

Comments

Submitted by [email protected] on February 6, 2024 - 11:43

Here the Debtor did not appeal the State Court Judgment which was final. Could have been a totally different outcome if Debtor had appealed. Miller v. Dunn, 35 F.4th 1007 (5th Cir. 2022) Before WIENER, GRAVES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. REVERSED and REMANDED. (June 2, 2022). Bradley Miller filed the underlying suit in Federal Court against his ex-wife Virginia Talley Dunn, two state judges, and several others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, pointing to related state-court proceedings pending on appeal. Miller appealed. Although the District Court found support in a decades-old decision from the Fifth Circuit, see Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1986), the Fifth Circuit here clarifies that that precedent has been unequivocally undermined by Supreme Court precedent clarifying the scope of Rooker-Feldman. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Cognizant that uncertainty over Hale’s continuing viability has sown confusion in the Fifth Circuit, Court resolves that Hale is no longer good law and that Rooker-Feldman does not apply to the situation where a state case is pending on appeal when the Federal suit is filed. In doing so, the Court brings the Fifth Circuit into alignment with every other Circuit to address the question. Accordingly, the Court reverses the District Court’s judgment and remands for further proceedings.