Redeaux v. TVC Funding IV REO, LLC

Background

Mary Ann Redeaux, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a foreclosure-related lawsuit against TVC Funding IV REO, LLC; Alameda County Superior Court judges Noel Wise, Rebekah Evenson, Sarah Sandford-Smith, and Elizabeth Riles; and the Alameda County Superior Court. The opinion refers to the judges and the superior court collectively as the Judicial Defendants.

Redeaux alleged that she and her deceased husband acquired Oakland property in 1971. She alleged that, in 2019, Julie Basmadjian offered to help refinance the property but pressured her to sign documents. The complaint and supporting materials indicated that the property was transferred through transactions involving Basmadjian and related entities, that a loan was secured by the property, and that the property was later sold at a foreclosure auction to TVC Funding IV REO, LLC. Redeaux also challenged actions taken by the state-court judges during foreclosure and eviction proceedings.

She asserted claims for due-process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy to deprive her of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and financial elder abuse under California law. She sought an injunction, an order setting aside the foreclosure and eviction, damages, and fees. The Judicial Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Redeaux did not file an opposition.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against the Alameda County Superior Court because the court is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity as an arm of the state. That immunity barred both damages and injunctive relief. The court explained that official-capacity claims against the state-court judges were likewise barred because Redeaux sought relief based on past events, including setting aside the foreclosure and eviction, rather than relief addressing an ongoing violation of federal law.

For any individual-capacity claims seeking injunctive relief, the court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeal court reviewing state-court judgments. The court concluded that Redeaux’s requested relief would amount to a challenge to the state judges’ decisions.

For individual-capacity claims seeking damages, the court held that the judges had absolute judicial immunity because the challenged conduct consisted of rulings made in their judicial capacities. The court also stated that Redeaux’s § 1985 conspiracy allegations against the judges and the superior court, allegedly involving TVC, were conclusory.

Disposition

The court granted the Judicial Defendants’ amended motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against the Judicial Defendants with prejudice. TVC had not appeared, and the docket did not show that TVC had been served, although a summons had been issued. Because more than 90 days had passed since the complaint was filed, the court ordered Redeaux to show cause why the claims against TVC should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve and/or failure to prosecute. The court stated that those claims would be automatically dismissed without prejudice if Redeaux did not respond. The order also disposed of the Judicial Defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss and first amended motion to dismiss.