Laura Kropelnicki, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Hal Siegel, Linda Strumpf, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that letters written to plaintiffs' attorney were not actionable under the FDCPA, citing Kropelnicki.
• holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal review of a claim that was, or could have been, raised before the state court
• holding that plaintiff lacked standing to bring FDCPA claim because even if “the contents of a letter violated the FDCPA,” the letter “was not addressed to her.”
• holding that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “lower federal .courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a case if the exercise of jurisdiction over that case would result in the reversal or modification of a state court judgment”
• holding that “if adjudication of a claim in federal court would require the court to determine that a state court judgment was erroneously entered or was void” then adjudication of that claim by a federal court would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
• recognizing that a pleading violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where, among other criteria, “after reasonable inquiry, a competent attorney could not form a reasonable belief that the pleading is well grounded in fact” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).