Samuel Noah Keoni Levitz v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i dismissed Samuel Noah Keoni Levitz’s complaint challenging a state-court foreclosure judgment against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The court held that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed the case without leave to amend, while denying Levitz’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and sanctions motion. The court also denied without prejudice motions to declare Levitz a vexatious litigant and to expunge a notice filed with Hawai‘i’s Bureau of Conveyances.

Holdings

1. The Complaint was barred by Rooker-Feldman because Plaintiff was a state-court loser complaining of injuries caused by a state-court foreclosure judgment and sought to render that judgment void or cancel it.
2. Plaintiff's assertion of extrinsic fraud did not avoid Rooker-Feldman because the Complaint's actual objective was to reject the state foreclosure judgment, and the alleged fraud was attributed to an entity not named as a defendant.
3. Dismissal without leave to amend was warranted because Plaintiff had previously been apprised of the defect and further amendment would be futile.
4. The temporary restraining order was denied because, following dismissal of all claims, Plaintiff could not show a likelihood of success on the merits.
5. The court denied SSL Partners LLC's motion to expunge without prejudice because Hawai‘i Revised Statutes section 507D-7(a) authorizes a State circuit court, not this federal district court, to order expungement of an instrument filed with the Bureau of Conveyances.
6. Sanctions were denied because Plaintiff identified no authority requiring counsel to verify his retention, showed no prejudice from alleged service deficiencies, and provided no support for an improper-purpose or Rule 11 violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it sought federal district court review or nullification of a state-court foreclosure judgment.
2. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend after dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order.
4. Whether sanctions should be imposed against Defendant's counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
5. Whether Defendant established grounds for declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and restricting his future filings.
6. Whether the federal district court had authority under Hawai‘i law to expunge a notice filed with the State of Hawai‘i's Bureau of Conveyances.

Disposition

dismissed