FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

v.

WOODROFFE

M.D. Fla. | 2020-04-01

No. 8:20-cv-25

District Court, M.D. Florida (2020) Negative Treatment

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the defendant's petition for removal was improper and dismissed it, remanding the case to state court.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant attempted to remove a state court foreclosure action to federal court after a final judgment and writ of possession had been issued. Thi…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Writ Of Possession Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gary Lee Woodroffe’s “Verified Petition for Removal.”¹ (Doc. 1). Upon review, the Court dismisses Woodroffe’s petition and remands this case. The underlying state court foreclosure action was originally filed in 2012. See JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Woodroffe, No. 2012-CA-008232 (Fla. 12th Jud. Cir. Ct.).2 Following years of court proceedings, stalled by several improper removals to federal court by Woodroffe, the state court entered a final foreclosure judgment on October 4, 2016. Id. Woodroffe’s appeal of the final foreclosure judgment was dismissed on December 26, 2017. Woodroffe v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg., No. 2D16-4990

Loan Servs., LLC v. Allen, 762 F. App’x 625, 627 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Jackson v. Am. Sav. Mortg. Corp., 924 F. 2d 195, 198–99 (11th Cir. 1991); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bakker, 51 F. 3d 242, 244–46 (11th Cir. 1995)). This is not one of those circumstances. When a defendant in a foreclosure action attempts “to remove [a] foreclosure action [after] final judgment, there [is] no state-court action pending at the time to remove, inasmuch as nothing remain[s] for the state courts to do but execute the judgment.” Id. at 628 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Oviedo v. Hallbauer, 655 F. 3d 419, 425 (5th Cir. 2011)). Further, federal court review of a state court’s award of a writ of possession violates the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Carr v. U.S. Bank as trustee for TBW Mortg. Backed Tr. Series 2006-6, 793 F. App'x 971, 974 (11th Cir. 2019). As such, the Court finds that Woodroffe’s “removal was improper and did not vest jurisdiction over the underlying case” in this Court.³ See Aurora, 762 F. App’x. at 628–29 (citing Jackson, 924 F. 2d at 198 n.8).

The Court notes that Woodroffe has previously attempted to improperly remove state court actions – including this particular state court foreclosure case – on several occasions. See, e.g., Woodroffe v. Coffin, No. 8:18-cv-3023-T-23CPT, 2019 WL 4718965, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:18-CV-3023-T-23CPT, 2019 WL 4694736 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26,

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 1st day of April, 2020.

fr / \ J i ed : .} Ls / / O Ps

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

1 Woodroffe’s petition for removal does not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and Local Rule 4.02(b), which require the removing party to provide the Court with a copy of all process, pleadings, orders, and other papers then on file in the state court. 2 Federal courts may take judicial notice of state court records. See United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana Inc., 776 F. 3d 805, 812 n.4 (11th Cir. 2015). (Fla. 2d DCA). On January 4, 2020, the state court granted a writ of possession. (Doc. 1 at 18). Post-judgment removal is only permitted in limited circumstances. Aurora

3 The Court further notes that Woodroffe has not met his burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332. 2019); Woodroffe v. State of Fla., No. 8:15-cev-2610-T-27JSS, 2016 WL 375067 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2016). Woodroffe is warned that he may be subject to sanctions if he continues to improperly remove state court actions. See, e.g., Retreat at Stonecrest: Apartments v. Chisolm, No. 1:18-CV-5362-AT, 2018 WL 6715764, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 29, 2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. The “Verified Petition for Removal” (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 2. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Florida. 3. Once remand is effected, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

United States ex rel. Marc Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2015)
Jackson v. Am. Sav. Mortg. Corp. & The Resolution Tr. Corp., 924 F.2d 195 (11th Cir. 1991)
Resolution Tr. Corp. for Hansen Sav. Bank v. Pieter Bakker, 51 F.3d 242 (11th Cir. 1995)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw