From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashford v. Countrywide Home Loans

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division
Oct 18, 2010
No. 7:10-CV-162-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2010)

Opinion

No. 7:10-CV-162-D.

October 18, 2010


ORDER


Carol S. Ashford ("plaintiff") has launched a collateral attack in this court on foreclosure proceedings instituted in Brunswick County Superior Court concerning property on Oak Island, North Carolina. Plaintiff now seeks a temporary restraining order [D.E. 2]. Defendants have responded in opposition [D.E. 20].

Plaintiff has failed to allege grounds for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because plaintiff and defendant Brock Scott, PLLC are both North Carolina citizens. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Moreover, federal question jurisdiction does not exist on the face of the complaint. See id. § 1331; In re Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2006).

If plaintiff is not satisfied with the foreclosure proceedings in Brunswick County Superior Court (and she clearly is not), she needs to appeal within the North Carolina appellate system. If still dissatisfied, she may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this court from sitting in direct review of North Carolina's appellate or trial courts. See, e.g., Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (per curiam); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 463-64 (4th Cir. 2006); Davani v. Va. Dept. of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 718-19 (4th Cir. 2006); Moore v. Idealease of Wilmington, 465 F. Supp. 2d 484, 489 (E.D.N.C. 2006).

Alternatively, this court cannot enjoin the state-court proceedings based on the allegations in the rambling and incoherent complaint. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2283; Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977); Denny's Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 528-30 (4th Cir. 2004); Phillips v. Charles Schreiner Bank, 894 F.2d 127, 131-32 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, even if this court has jurisdiction and the power to issue an injunction, plaintiff has failed to meet the four requirements necessary to obtain an injunction. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Elec. Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 345-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010).

In sum, plaintiff's request for injunctive relief [D.E. 2] is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even if the court has jurisdiction, plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. This 18 day of October 2010.


Summaries of

Ashford v. Countrywide Home Loans

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division
Oct 18, 2010
No. 7:10-CV-162-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Ashford v. Countrywide Home Loans

Case Details

Full title:CAROL S. ASHFORD, Plaintiff, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, BANK OF AMERICA…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

Date published: Oct 18, 2010

Citations

No. 7:10-CV-162-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wiggins v. Planet Home Lending, LLC

Moreover, Wiggins's claims in her complaint fail to implicate federal law or any other grounds for federal…

Reaves v. Nationstar Mortg., Inc.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this court from reviewing the propriety of the foreclosure order. See, e.g.,…