Dkt. 75. They ask me to sanction Nora by dismissing or staying the case until she can show that she has paid the various monetary sanctions issued against her for her previous work as a lawyer in foreclosure-related cases, some of them involving the Litchfield Cavo defendants. See In re Lisse, 921 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2019) (upholding this court's orders sanctioning her $1,837.50, sanctioning her $2,500, suspending her from practicing in the Western District of Wisconsin, and lifting the stay on another $2,500 sanction previously issued by the court of appeals); In re Rinaldi, 778 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2015) (upholding $1,000 sanction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin); In re Disciplinary Action against Nora, No. A18-1574, 2019 WL 2203283, at *6 (Minn. May 22, 2019) (ordering Nora to pay $900 in costs associated with the suspension of her law license in Minnesota). Nora is currently barred from appearing as a lawyer in this court, but that sanction does not prevent her from representing herself in a case that was removed to this court.
We have explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "prohibits federal district courts from exercising subjectmatter jurisdiction over claims seeking relief that would, in essence, vacate a state court judgment, because only the United States Supreme Court may review such judgments." In re Nora, 942 N.W.2d 127, 130 n.2 (Minn. 2019). Ludescher's argument is that the referee does not have the power to determine that the juvenile court's orders were unenforceable.
In May 2019, we indefinitely suspended respondent, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her for 1 year. In re Nora , 942 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Minn. 2019). Respondent remains suspended in Minnesota.