Epps v. Creditnet, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 February 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-2225.,02-2225.
• Citation: 320 F.3d 756
• Parties: Leroy EPPS and Robert Venable, III, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CREDITNET, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

320 F.3d 756

Leroy EPPS and Robert Venable, III, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CREDITNET, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2225.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued October 29, 2002.

Decided February 28, 2003.

Clifford W. Shepard (Argued), Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John F. Ittenbach (Argued), Sheeks, Ittenbach & Johnson, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CUDAHY, COFFEY, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Leroy Epps and Robert Venable, III appeal a summary judgment entered against them in their suit against defendant Creditnet, alleging that Creditnet's earlier action in Indiana Small Claims Court for check deception violated the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code's limitation on charges associated with consumer loans. Because the Small Claims Court's judgment of civil damages for check deception is a valid state court judgment, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine denies the district court and this court subject matter jurisdiction to review that prior state court decision. We remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss.

I.

Leroy Epps and Robert Venable (Plaintiffs) both financed the purchase of automobiles using a retail installment contract that they entered into with Auto Advantage Corporation. Auto Advantage subsequently assigned all right, title and interest in the contracts to defendant Creditnet, Inc. (Creditnet). Epps tendered a check of $330.00 to Creditnet in payment of an installment of his contract that was returned unpaid to Creditnet because of insufficient funds. Venable tendered a check of $280.38 to Creditnet in payment of an installment of his contract that was returned unpaid to Creditnet because Venable did not have an account at the drawee bank. Creditnet sent both Epps and Venable a letter notifying them that their respective checks had not been honored. Neither Epps nor Venable has ever made good on his respective check.

In September 1999, Creditnet and attorney Charles Sheeks (as debt collector for Creditnet) filed suit against both Epps and Venable in Marion County, Indiana, Small Claims Court for $990.00 and $841.14, respectively. The suits were filed under Indiana Code §§ 35-43-5-5,¹ 34-24-3-1,² the Indiana check deception statutes criminalizing the intentional delivery of a bad check and providing the victim a civil action for treble damages for such a criminal violation. Judgment was thereafter entered against Epps and Venable for treble damages.

A year later, Epps and Venable filed suit in federal court in the Southern District of Indiana against Creditnet and Sheeks alleging in count I a class claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., against Sheeks only; in count II a class claim under the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code (IUCCC), Ind.Code §§ 24-4.5-1-1 et seq., against Creditnet only; and in count III an individual claim under the FDCPA against Sheeks for attempting to collect from Venable a debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy. The district court purported to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in count II under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).³

The claim in count II against Creditnet alleged that the IUCCC limited penalties for bad checks to $20, Ind.Code § 24-4.5-3-202(1)(f), and that the "seeking or collecting" of any amount above the allowed $20 made Creditnet liable "to cancel or make restitution of the excess charges." Complaint at ¶ 72. On cross-motions for summary judgment on a stipulated record, the district court granted Creditnet's motion for summary judgment on count II.⁴ The district court found that the IUCCC did not conflict with the Indiana criminal and civil bad check statutes, and that the IUCCC did not preclude civil liability for violation of the bad check statutes. Further, the court ruled that the IUCCC is concerned with charges in a consumer loan contract, not with limiting liability for criminal check deception. The district court entered final judgment on the claims brought against Creditnet in April 2002. This appeal followed.

II.

A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the non-moving party. Peele v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 288 F.3d 319, 326 (7th Cir.2002). The parties have stipulated to all of the facts in this case, and the only questions for us are issues of interpretation of state law, which are also reviewed de novo. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1090 (7th Cir.1999). A district court's determination that it has subject matter jurisdiction is additionally one that we review de novo. Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n, 306 F.3d 445, 452 (7th Cir.2002).

The first and dispositive issue that we must address concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Creditnet argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.⁵ See, e.g., Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a principle of jurisdiction that precludes the lower federal courts from applying appellate review to state court decisions. An action in federal court that alleges an injury "inextricably intertwined" with a state court decision, such that success in the federal court would require overturning the state court decision, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Lewis v. Anderson, 308 F.3d 768, 772 (7th Cir.2002); Edwards v. Illinois Bd. of Admissions to the Bar, 261 F.3d 723, 729 (7th Cir.2001). Epps and Venable's suit against Creditnet attacks the validity of the Indiana state court's treble damages judgment and is, therefore, an action over which the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Epps and Venable's claim arises under Indiana's Uniform Consumer Credit Code, which provides, in part,

(1) In addition to the loan finance charge permitted by [other IUCCC code sections], a lender may contract for and receive the following additional charges in connection with a consumer loan:

* * * * * *

(f) A charge not to exceed twenty dollars ($20) for each return by a bank... of a dishonored check ... issued by the debtor.

Ind.Code § 24-4.5-3-202(1)(f). Epps and Venable allege that the treble damages assessed under the bad check statutes are not authorized by the IUCCC. The Plaintiffs also allege that under the IUCCC they cannot be required to pay such "excess charges" and can recover damages for the assessment of "excess charges." Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-202(3)-(4); see also Complaint at ¶ 72. Their prayer for relief asks the district court to set aside the judgment of the Marion County Small Claims Court and "refund" (constructively, since the damages have not been paid) the damages assessed by the state court against Epps and Venable. According to the Plaintiffs, we should find that the application by the Small Claims Court of the bad check statutes was in error because the IUCCC preempts the bad check statutes. Thus, the claim before us is inextricably intertwined with the civil bad check claim previously adjudicated by the state court.

Epps and Venable argue that their claim does not ask us to review the state court judgment because their claim arose at the time Creditnet filed its suit in state court and exists regardless of the state court's ultimate adjudication. But the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the IUCCC is fundamentally flawed. The Plaintiffs were not liable under the civil bad check statutes until the state court entered judgment against them. Indiana law makes treble damages available in a civil action, but damages do not lie until a court has found liability, determined damages and entered judgment.

Epps and Venable try to avoid this result by re-characterizing the Small Claims action as an enforcement action "to collect the excess charge." Appellants' Br. at 16. This argument is specious. The state court action in question clearly was not an enforcement action. The purpose of the state court action was to seek a determination of legal liability and damages. Therefore, the "charge" against which the Plaintiffs' current suit was filed did not come into existence prior to judgment, and the Plaintiffs' current suit has as its principal purpose the invalidation of that judgment. Contrary to the assertions of Epps and Venable, if the underlying Small Claims state court action had never gone to judgment, there would be no "charge" and, consequently, nothing to be set aside by the present suit.

Epps and Venable cite an unpublished district court opinion and an unpublished district court order to support their position. But these cases are not helpful. Witt v. Westfield Acceptance Corp., No. IP 00-1001-C S/H, 2002 WL 826372, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7821 (S.D.Ind. March 25, 2002), also involved state law claims under the IUCCC. Witt also sought to overturn a treble damages award under Indiana state law. In addition, she claimed that she was not challenging the judgment but instead challenging the filing of the lawsuit to collect more than the charges allowable under the IUCCC. Id. The district court dismissed this count of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Epps and Venable note that a co-plaintiff in Witt raising identical claims did not suffer dismissal. They want us to infer that this co-plaintiff's claims under the IUCCC went forward in the face of Rooker-Feldman. The conclusion, argue Epps and Venable, is that Witt's claim that the IUCCC defeated the prayer for treble damages would also have been justiciable in the face of Rooker-Feldman. Appellants' Br. at 17. But it is pure speculation whether the co-plaintiff's claim went forward in the face of a Rooker-Feldman challenge and whether Witt's claim would...