In decisions on Aug. 5, two circuit courts groped for the indistinct boundaries among the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, res judicata and issue preclusion. Stating the rules is apparently easier than applying the rules in practice.
Named for two Supreme Court decisions, Rooker-Feldman says that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review judgments by state courts.
In the Eighth Circuit, a man filed bankruptcy in the midst of a matrimonial dispute. Because he refused to pay spousal maintenance after bankruptcy, the wife’s lawyer dragged him into state court. The state court jailed him for contempt until he paid overdue maintenance, ruling in the process that the automatic stay did not bar proceedings to compel payment of support.
After his chapter 13 case was dismissed, the former husband sued his former wife and her lawyer in bankruptcy court for violating the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court dismissed the suit, believing there was no subject matter jurisdiction as a consequence of Rooker-Feldman.
In an opinion by Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, the appeals court reversed.
Judge Kelly explained that Rooker-Feldman applies when someone seeks relief from a state court judgment. The doctrine does not apply to an action seeking “relief from the allegedly illegal act or omission of an adverse party.”
Because the husband was not seeking to overturn the state court decision, Rooker-Feldman did not apply, Judge Kelly held.
Judge Kelly did not say whether rules of issue or claim preclusion would still result in dismissal or summary judgment after remand. The Tenth Circuit, however, explored the relationship in depth between Rooker-Feldman and claim preclusion in a non-precedential opinion also on Aug. 5.
In the Tenth Circuit case, the appeals court explained why res judicata or issue preclusion would still result in dismissal even if Rooker-Feldman did not apply.