Mahamed Khan v. M&T Bank, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP, Peter Lawrence, Brian Gilbert, Hon. Lisa M. Vignuolo, Hon. Thomas D. McCloskey, John/Jane Does 1-10

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Mahamed Khan’s motions for a temporary restraining order, to strike, and for an emergency stay of a sheriff’s sale. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over Khan’s challenge to a prior state-court foreclosure judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Holdings

1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction because Khan lost in state court, sought relief from injuries caused by the state foreclosure judgment, the judgment preceded the federal action, and he sought federal review and rejection of that judgment.
2. Khan was not entitled to a temporary restraining order or emergency stay because he failed to establish the required factors for preliminary equitable relief, including a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Khan's challenge to the state-court foreclosure judgment.
2. Whether Khan was entitled to a temporary restraining order or emergency stay of the sheriff's sale.
3. Whether Khan's motion to strike defendants' letter contesting service should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed