United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
the Court is Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank's Motion to
Dismiss. R. Doc. 43. Third Party Plaintiff Craige did not
respond to the motion. Having reviewed the parties'
briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this
Order & Reasons.
tort case involves a dispute arising out of a promissory note
executed by Kristian Craige, dated June 16, 2003, regarding
an Act of Mortgage executed on the same date. R. Doc. 1-1 at
1. The note was executed in favor of New Freedom Mortgage
Corporation in the principal amount $73, 369.00 and
stipulating 6% interest per annum on the unpaid balance. R.
Doc. 1-1 at 1. While the viability of the transfers is
disputed, the record indicates that New Freedom Mortgage
endorsed the mortgage note to Citimortgage, Inc., and
Citimortgage, Inc. in turn endorsed the note to Midfirst
Bank. R. Doc. 1-1 at 2. On December 17, 2014, Midfirst Bank
instituted foreclosure proceedings in state court to collect
on the unpaid principal on the note, $65, 795.39. R. Doc. 1-1
March 15, 2016, Craige filed a pro se counterclaim
in state court against Midfirst Bank
(“Midfirst”), Citimortgage, Inc., Citibank N.A.,
and Citigroup Inc (“the Citi Entities”). The
counterclaim alleges numerous procedural errors committed by
Midfirst during the foreclosure process, and also claims that
the assignment of the note “has yet to be
verified.” R. Doc. 1-2 at 3. On July 26, 2016, the
Court held that Third Party Plaintiff's tort claims were
prescribed, but granted leave for Craige to amend his
complaint and re-assert any non-prescribed claims. R. Doc.
19. On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to
“re-urge any non-prescribed claims, ” but did not
specify any of the new claims he wished to assert against
Defendants. R. Doc. 21. The Court denied the Motion and
explained that Plaintiff was barred from re-urging the claims
in the initial Complaint, as the Court already determined
those claims had prescribed. R. Doc. 23. The Court granted
Third Party Plaintiff a third opportunity to file another
Complaint alleging a non-prescribed claim, if such a claim
exists. R. Doc. 23.
response, Craige filed a motion to re-urge a Complaint with
non-prescribed claims against any of the parties. R. Doc. 26.
The Court dismissed this motion as moot. R. Doc. 38.
Defendant Midfirst Bank has filed a Motion to Dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, and insufficient
service. R. Doc. 43. First, Midfirst argues that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the claim is a
collateral attack on a state court proceeding. R. Doc. 43 at
4. The Bank argues that the foreclosure is a final judgment
and cannot be reviewed because the state court specifically
rejected Craige's claims. R. Doc. 43 at 6, 7.
Midfirst argues that if the Court finds it has jurisdiction,
the claims are barred by res judicata. R. Doc. 43 at
9. The Bank avers that all foreclosures in Louisiana are
res judicata because they are judicial sales. R.
Doc. 43 at 10. Therefore, because Craige failed to raise his
available arguments at the state court foreclosure, he should
not be allowed to relitigate those issues in federal court.
R. Doc. 43 at 10.
Midfirst argues that Craige's claims should be dismissed
because Defendant Midfirst Bank was never properly served. R.
Doc. 43 at 10. Midfirst alleges that rather than follow
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure,  Craige mailed a copy of the
complaint to a P.O. Box in Oklahoma City. R. Doc. 43 at 11.
claims brought by Third Party Plaintiff Craige against Third
Party Defendants Citimortgage, Inc., Citibank N.A., and
Citigroup Inc. have been dismissed as either prescribed, R.
Doc. 19, or moot, R. Doc. 38, and the Citi Entities were
terminated from this action on May, 26, 2017. Further, it
appears that there are no live claims against Counter
Defendant Midfirst Bank because they were not properly
in the event that there were live claims against Counter
Defendant Midfirst Bank, such claims would be pre-empted by
the state court foreclosure proceedings. Here, the Court
lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
which “bars federal courts from adjudicating claims
where the plaintiff seeks to overturn a state-court
judgment.” Troung v. Bank of America, N.A.,
717 F.3d 377, 381 (5th Cir. 2013) Therefore, any and all
remaining claims against Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank
should be dismissed.