Phillips

MEMORANDUM *

Phillips appeals the district court’s denial of his petition to vacate the arbitration award against him. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, Katzin confirmed the arbitration award in California Superi- or Court, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Katzin moves to dismiss under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Rooker-Feldman does not apply here because Phillips’ complaint does not allege that the state court judgment was erroneous. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1526-27 , 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (stating that Rooker-Feldman applies when “the losing party in state court file[s] suit in federal court after the state proceedings ended, complaining of an injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment” and that “neither Rooker nor Feldman supports the notion that properly invoked concurrent jurisdiction vanishes if a state court reaches judgment on the same or related question while the case…