Savage v. Savage

Background

Colette Claire Savage, representing herself, sued Mark Savage concerning a promissory note, a family trust, and related litigation in California and Texas state courts. On May 18, 2020, the court granted Mark Savage's motion to dismiss, denied Savage's requests for preliminary injunctive relief, and entered judgment. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court reviewing or undoing a state-court judgment.

While Savage's first motion for reconsideration was pending, she filed a third request for a preliminary injunction and an emergency stay concerning writ-of-execution proceedings in Texas court. The court denied that request because the dismissal and judgment had not been vacated or set aside and the federal court therefore still lacked jurisdiction. Savage then asked the court to reconsider both the May 18 judgment and the order denying her third request for injunctive relief.

Motion concerning the May 18 judgment

Savage sought relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1). She argued that she did not understand what a request for judicial notice was and had little time to research the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. She also challenged the state-court decisions that Mark Savage had submitted and argued that California probate orders made later Texas orders void. In addition, she argued that Mark Savage committed fraud in the Texas court by failing to disclose the California probate orders.

The court denied reconsideration of the May 18 judgment. It found that Savage had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, an intervening change in controlling law, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court also held that her arguments continued to show that she was challenging state-court judgments and seeking relief from them. The court rejected application of the exception for conduct that prevented a person from presenting a claim in state court because Savage did not contend that she had been prevented from submitting the California orders there.

Motion concerning the third request for injunctive relief

The court also denied Savage's request to reconsider the order denying her third motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons stated in its discussion of the first motion, the court found no basis to revisit the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.