Ahchouch v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC

Background

Nizar Ahchouch and Andrea Lucas sued Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Their complaint asserted negligence and sought monetary damages. It also requested a declaration requiring the defendants to allow them to assume the mortgage loan and an injunction stopping a foreclosure sale. The court noted that declarations and injunctions are remedies rather than separate causes of action.

The plaintiffs applied for a temporary restraining order to stop a foreclosure sale scheduled for January 7, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. The sale resulted from a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered by the New York Supreme Court, Dutchess County, on October 29, 2024. The federal court denied the application in a text-only order on January 7 and issued this order explaining its reasons.

Jurisdictional ruling

The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the requested relief. That doctrine prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts reviewing state court judgments. The court found that the plaintiffs lost in the state foreclosure action, complained of losing their residence because of that judgment, asked the federal court to review and reject the judgment, and filed the federal action after the state court entered its judgment.

The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief the plaintiffs sought. The opinion also noted that the plaintiffs did not claim that fraud occurred before or during the state foreclosure proceedings; instead, they treated the state court decision as wrongly decided.

Temporary restraining order

The court separately held that, even if it had jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for a temporary restraining order. Such emergency relief requires, among other things, a showing of likely irreparable harm—harm that cannot adequately be repaired later with money or another ordinary remedy.

The plaintiffs argued that they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm because the foreclosure sale could cause them to lose their primary residence and become homeless. The court found that they did not explain how they faced an actual and imminent threat of homelessness. The court also found that they had notice of the approaching sale by at least December 9, 2024, but waited until slightly more than three hours before the scheduled sale to seek relief. That delay weakened their claim of an emergency.

Disposition

The court stated that injunctive relief would be improper even if it had jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. Judge Seibel accordingly denied the plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order. The order does not state that the entire lawsuit was dismissed.