Kevin Joseph Reed-Bey v. Bingyan Guo, Linmao Sun, Benjamin Huang, and Rising Investments LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends granting defendants’ motion to dismiss Kevin Joseph Reed-Bey’s fee-paid, pro se complaint challenging a Solano County unlawful detainer judgment. The court concludes that the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman and Noerr-Pennington doctrines and that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The court recommends dismissal without leave to amend and addresses the parties’ requests for judicial notice.

Holdings

1. The action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff alleges a legal injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeks relief that would require the federal district court to declare the judgment void, vacate it, and restore possession.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a claim because he did not allege a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support any cause of action.
3. Plaintiff's claims based on defendants' unlawful-detainer action are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and plaintiff did not adequately plead facts supporting the sham-litigation exception.
4. Leave to amend should be denied because amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's action seeking to invalidate and undo a state-court unlawful-detainer judgment.
2. Whether plaintiff stated a cognizable claim supported by sufficient factual allegations under Rule 12(b)(6).
3. Whether defendants' filing and prosecution of the state unlawful-detainer action were protected petitioning activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and whether plaintiff adequately pleaded the sham-litigation exception.
4. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

other