Findling v. McCormick

Full title: DAVID FINDLING, ERIC BRAVERMAN, MRP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, and…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 24, 2006

Case No. 06-10101 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06-10101.

January 24, 2006

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

VICTORIA ROBERTS, District Judge

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief based on Defendants' vexatious litigation. The action originally stems from a 1987 divorce case. The Defendants continually challenged the property disposition of a home located at 8995 Henry Ruff, Livonia, Michigan. The Defendants' filed approximately thirty-five appeals in Michigan state court and two in federal court. The 1987 divorce case remains active in Michigan state court.

Both of Defendants' federal court actions were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.¹ All of the Defendants' claims relate to the Michigan state court disposition of the Henry Ruff property.

1 See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

The Plaintiffs, the targets of Defendants' filings, seek a preliminary injunction precluding the Defendants from filing any new actions in state or federal court pertaining to the Henry Ruff property and the actions of the Plaintiffs, without leave of court. The Plaintiffs contend the Court may issue the injunction under the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651. [Complaint, ¶ 59].

The Plaintiffs' action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs failed to set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the Complaint. Paragraph 9 claims the Court has "supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims and parties under 28 USC § 1367."² However, there are no claims providing original jurisdiction.

2 (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. * * *

The sole claim in this action is for injunctive relief pursuant to the All Writs Act. [Complaint, ¶ 59]. The All Writs Act does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts; there must be an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction to order a writ. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002); see also, Tropf v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., et al., 289 F.3d 929, 943 (6^th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the earlier federal filings of the Defendants were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, so those actions could not have supported the issuance of a writ under the All Writs Act either.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.