Murphy v. GE Capital Asset Corp.

Type

Opinion of the Court

Filed

June 5, 2002

Case

Murphy v. GE Capital Asset Corp.

Case status

Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Pat Murphy brought a suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., against various financial institutions and their lawyers. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had fraudulently foreclosed a mortgage on his property by presenting fraudulent mortgage documents to the state courts and by deliberately failing to provide him with proper notice of the foreclosure action. The district court dismissed the suit as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See generally D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 , 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 , 44 S.Ct. 149 , 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). We affirm. We review district court conclusions about subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 93 F.3d 1064 , 1070 (2d Cir.1996). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the “lower federal courts lack subject matter *87 jurisdiction over claims that effectively challenge state court judgments.” Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.