Mary Abbott v. Chris Okoye

MEMORANDUM

Mary Abbott (“Abbott”) appeals the district court’s adverse summary judgment grant, arguing the district court erred in finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred jurisdiction over her claims. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to exercise appellate review over final state court judgments.” Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609 , 613 (9th Cir.2007). As the Supreme Court has explained, we must construe Rooker-Feldman narrowly, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 , 125 S.Ct. 1517 , 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), and the doctrine “applies only when the federal plaintiff both asserts as her injury legal error or errors by the state court and seeks as her remedy relief from the state court judgment,” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2004).

With the exception of the breach of contract claim, the district court correctly found Rooker-Feldman barred Abbott’s claims. In her other claims,…