FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES CLAIMS UNDER ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE BASED ON LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Flagstar Bank (“the Bank”) obtained a foreclosure judgment against Stephen Charles Fortier (“Fortier”) in July 2025 and pursuant to the judgment the clerk sold Fortier’s real property at public sale in September 2025. Shortly after the foreclosure judgment, and without appealing the judgment, Fortier filed suit in federal court seeking relief against Flagstar Bank, its predecessor-in-interest, the Bank’s attorneys[1] and servicers, credit reporting agencies, Pasco County, the Florida Bar, and others. Fortier v. Flagstar Bank, Case No. 8:25-cv-02076-JLB-LSG (Fla. MD April 27, 2026).

Fortier’s complaint, filed in August 2025, alleged claims for breach of contract, general fraud, mail and wire fraud, violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), and Securities Exchange Act, “deprivation of rights under color of law,” and due process violations.[2] The court, based on its obligation to determine its jurisdiction, considered the allegations of Fortier’s complaint and surmised it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter.

The Court explained that dismissal was required because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented federal court review of state court proceedings noting that “only the Supreme Court can reverse or modify state court judgments” and that federal courts generally could not hear appeals.[3] The court elaborated that although Fortier attempted to cloak his attack on the state court foreclosure judgment by raising claims stemming from federal law, e.g., the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and TILA, his claims were federal “in name only” and the factual allegations failed to support any federal violations.[4]

The Court, looking beyond the form of Fortier’s allegations, concluded his complaint constituted a “direct attack on the underlying state court decision” because he sought “to either overturn the state court foreclosure judgment or award damages” based on the fact the judgment was entered.[5] Both bases for relief were prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although the court dismissed Fortier’s complaint without prejudice, it is unlikely Fortier will be able to amend his pleadings to assert facts which would create federal-court subject matter jurisdiction. We will keep you apprised of any pertinent developments so stay tuned!

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. Flagstar Bank (“the Bank”) foreclosed against borrower, Stephen Charles Fortier (“Fortier”), and obtained a final judgment. Shortly after the foreclosure judgment, and without appealing the judgment, Fortier filed suit in federal court seeking relief against Flagstar Bank, its predecessor-in-interest, the Bank’s attorneys and servicers, credit reporting agencies, Pasco County, the Florida Bar, and others. Fortier v. Flagstar Bank, Case No. 8:25-cv-02076-JLB-LSG (Fla. MD April 27, 2026).

2. Among other claims, Fortier’s complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of several federal laws. The court determined the complaint allegations pertaining to violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and TILA were federal “in name only” and the factual allegations failed to support any federal violations. The Court, looking beyond the form of Fortier’s allegations, concluded Fortier’s complaint constituted a “direct attack on the underlying state court decision” because he sought “to either overturn the state court foreclosure judgment or award damages” based on the fact the judgment was entered.[6] 

3. The Court explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibited Fortier from seeking such relief from a federal court. Although the court dismissed Fortier’s complaint without prejudice, it is unlikely Fortier will be able to amend his pleadings to assert facts which would create federal-court subject matter jurisdiction. We will keep you apprised of any pertinent developments so stay tuned!

1 Diaz, Anselmo & Associates represented Flagstar Bank in the foreclosure

proceedings.

2 Fortier, at 3-4.

3 Fortier, at 2-3.

4 Fortier, at 4, fn1.

5 Fortier, at 3. Future references to this opinion are to this citation until indicated

otherwise.

6 Fortier, at 3. Future references to this opinion are to this citation until indicated

otherwise.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252