Gruntz

dissenting:

The majority frames the central question in this case as “whether the California state courts had preclusive jurisdiction to determine if the state criminal proceedings against Gruntz were excluded from the automatic stay in bankruptcy.” Majority Opinion at 732. For me, the issue is whether we should create a bankruptcy *739 exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which teaches that federal courts of limited original jurisdiction may not arrogate appellate powers by reviewing the final judgments of competent state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Because I see no basis for creating such an exception, I would affirm the district court. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

I.

The bankrupt, Gruntz, was convicted in Los Angeles County Municipal Court for failing to make child support payments, a crime under state law. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Both the prosecution and conviction were indisputably within the normal criminal jurisdiction of the state courts. In the…

Opinion by Judge DAVID R. THOMPSON; Dissent by Judge FLETCHER.

Robert Gruntz, a debtor in bankruptcy, was convicted in California state court on criminal charges of failing to pay child support. He argued in state court that his prosecution was invalid because it violated the automatic stay in his bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 . The state court rejected this argument, and Gruntz was convicted. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.

Gruntz then filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy court and sought injunctive and declaratory relief. He sought, among other things, an order from the bankruptcy court that his California state court conviction was invalid because it violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 . .

The bankruptcy court granted the appel-lee Los Angeles County’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The bankruptcy court held that collateral estoppel precluded Gruntz from relitigating in the bankruptcy court the stay issue which he had litigated in the California trial and appellate courts. Gruntz then appealed to the district court.

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Gruntz’s complaint. It did so…