Jaoude v. Hannah

Full title: MARIA L. JAOUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATTHEW E. HANNAH, TIME WARNER…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 22, 2014

14-1611 (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2014)

Opinion

14-1611

12-22-2014

MARIA L. JAOUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATTHEW E. HANNAH, TIME WARNER CABLE, RITA J. BIONDI, Defendants-Appellees.

FOR APPELLANT: MARIA L. JAOUDE, pro se, Buffalo, New York. FOR APPELLEES MATTHEW E. HANNAH AND TIME WARNER CABLE: A. VINCENT BUZARD, Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford, New York. FOR APPELLEE RITA J. BIONDI: MICHAEL T. HAGELIN, Hagelin Kent, LLC, Buffalo, New York.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22^nd day of December, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, DENNIS JACOBS, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

FOR APPELLANT:

MARIA L. JAOUDE, pro se, Buffalo, New York.

FOR APPELLEES MATTHEW E. HANNAH AND TIME WARNER CABLE:

A. VINCENT BUZARD, Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford, New York.

FOR APPELLEE RITA J. BIONDI:

MICHAEL T. HAGELIN, Hagelin Kent, LLC, Buffalo, New York.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Appellant Maria L. Jaoude, pro se, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, including dismissals under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2005). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see also Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 85.

The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction both under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Jaoude's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK