Kimner v. Capital Title of Texas, LLC

Background

Audrey L. Kimner filed the case without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. She sued Capital Title of Texas, LLC, JEM Advisory Group, LLC, Tanglewood Condominium Owners, First Service Residential, Ceasons Holdings, LLC, individuals associated with those entities, and her former lawyer, Margaret A. Poissant.

Kimner alleged that Capital Title, JEM Advisory, and their agents fraudulently took her Houston condominium and the furniture inside it. She also asserted claims for fraud, civil-rights violations, and unlawful foreclosure. Against Poissant, she alleged deficient or unethical representation in earlier state-court lawsuits.

Screening and rulings

Because Kimner was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of a case that is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

For the claims against Capital Title, JEM Advisory, Tanglewood Condominium Owners, First Service Residential, Ceasons Holdings, and the related individuals, the court relied on two threshold problems. First, the court said the claims were effectively an appeal of earlier Texas state-court decisions involving the foreclosure. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a federal district court from hearing such an appeal. Second, the court said the federal removal statute permits defendants, not plaintiffs, to remove a civil case from state court. The court therefore dismissed those claims with prejudice.

For the claim against Poissant, the court held that Kimner had not pleaded facts plausibly showing attorney malpractice. Under the legal standard cited by the court, a malpractice claimant must show that she would have won the underlying case but for the lawyer’s malpractice. The court found that Kimner had not made that showing, but it granted her leave to amend the claim against Poissant by February 28, 2020. The court stated that the amended complaint had to cure the deficiencies identified in the order and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claim or claims against Poissant.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the claims against the corporate defendants and related individuals with prejudice and granted Kimner leave to file an amended complaint as to Poissant. The order did not dismiss the Poissant claim at that point; it allowed amendment subject to the stated deadline and requirements.