Dean v. Lafayette

Background

Joaquin Dean, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Jeremy Doberman and Marc Wohlgemuth, attorneys who represented parties adverse to him in state-court property and eviction proceedings. Dean alleged that the attorneys made discriminatory and inaccurate statements in connection with proceedings involving a property formerly owned by him. He asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and sought orders stopping the sale of the property and his eviction.

The property had been the subject of a state foreclosure action. A state court entered a foreclosure judgment in 2014, and later proceedings resulted in a judgment quieting title in U.S. Bank and allowing a copy of the deed to be recorded. Communipaw Lafayette LLC then purchased the property from U.S. Bank. Communipaw, represented by Doberman and Wohlgemuth, served Dean with an eviction notice and started a holdover proceeding seeking possession of the property.

Dean’s amended complaint alleged, among other things, that Wohlgemuth made comments about selling property to people like Dean and that Doberman made discriminatory comments about Dean’s bankruptcies during state-court proceedings. In his opposition to dismissal, Dean added claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and a claim for emotional damages. He also asked for the return of $306,000 allegedly taken from his bank account in a separate proceeding involving Lakeside Willow LLC.

Rulings on Added Claims and Jurisdiction

The court considered new factual allegations in Dean’s opposition when they were consistent with the amended complaint. It declined to consider the new Section 1982, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, constitutional, and emotional-damages claims because the amended complaint did not assert them. It also declined to consider the request for return of $306,000 because Dean raised it only in his opposition and sought relief against Lakeside, which was not a defendant. The court dismissed those claims and that request.

The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Dean’s requests to stop the completed property sale and eviction because those requests would require the federal court to review and reverse the state foreclosure and quiet-title judgments. The court also held that the Younger abstention doctrine barred interference with the holdover proceeding to the extent that proceeding was still pending. The opinion stated that the holdover proceeding’s current status was unclear, but that it appeared to remain pending based on the parties’ representations.

The court explained that these jurisdictional doctrines did not prevent it from considering a claim for damages based on alleged misconduct during the state proceedings. However, the court dismissed Dean’s Fair Housing Act claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court found that Dean did not plausibly allege discriminatory intent or show that the attorneys’ conduct occurred in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling. The alleged comments did not refer to Dean’s race, and the allegations concerning other people and entities did not establish liability by Doberman or Wohlgemuth.

Leave to Amend and Filing Injunction

The court declined to allow Dean to amend his complaint. It concluded that amendment would be futile because the jurisdictional barriers could not be overcome and Dean had not shown that he could plausibly state a federal claim against the attorneys based on their representation of parties opposing him in state proceedings.

The court also granted defendants’ request for a filing injunction. It relied on Dean’s history of multiple bankruptcy filings and other litigation concerning the property, the burden imposed by his lengthy filings and exhibits, and the court’s conclusion that he lacked an objective good-faith expectation of prevailing against these defendants. The injunction prohibits Dean from commencing a new lawsuit against Jeremy Doberman or Marc Wohlgemuth arising from the same facts alleged in the amended complaint and opposition without prior permission from the court.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and request for a filing injunction. It declined to grant leave to amend, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal, and instructed the clerk to close the case.