Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III

• Decision Date: 31 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-1979.,05-1979.
• Citation: 449 F.3d 542
• Parties: Deanna TURNER, Appellant v. CRAWFORD SQUARE APARTMENTS III, L.P.; McCormack Baron Management Services, Inc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 542

449 F.3d 542

Deanna TURNER, Appellant v. CRAWFORD SQUARE APARTMENTS III, L.P.; McCormack Baron Management Services, Inc.

No. 05-1979.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 6, 2006.

Filed May 31, 2006.

Donald Driscoll, Evalynn B. Welling, Community Justice Project, Pittsburgh, Pa, for Appellant.

Paul R. Yagelski, Rothman Gordon, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for Appellees.

Before ROTH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and BUCKWALTER, District Judge.^*

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes on before the court on appeal by plaintiff Deanna Turner from an order of the district court entered March 22, 2005, granting summary judgment in favor of Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P. ("Crawford Square") and McCormack Baron Management Services, Inc. ("McCormack Baron") (sometimes together called "defendants"). The district court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Turner's complaint alleging violations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the "Fair Housing Act" or "FHA").

On appeal, we first consider whether the district court erred in concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Turner's action, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), decided after the district court decided this case. As we shall explain, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in certain limited circumstances deprives a district court of jurisdiction following a state-court adjudication in a related case. In Exxon Mobil the Court clarified the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and made clear that courts have applied it beyond its appropriate boundaries. If we conclude that application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar Turner's action, we then must determine whether application of principles of res judicata bars this action.¹ For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable in this case, but we will affirm the grant of summary judgment on res judicata grounds.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 1999, Turner and her two children moved into a rental housing development in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, owned by defendant-appellee Crawford Square and managed by defendant-appellee McCormack Baron.² Turner asserts that she has been "fully and permanently disabled" since August 2000 when "her nervous system broke down," and "a hole had formed at the base of her spine," rendering her unable to work. App. at 172. In December 2000, Turner was delinquent in her rent and sought an accommodation from McCormack Baron allowing her to pay her rent late "until she could again obtain a regular source of income." App. at 172. According to Turner, McCormack Baron did not accommodate her or refer her to local social services agencies that could provide information on rental assistance programs, but, instead, commenced an eviction action in the state courts against her. In point of fact, however, Crawford Square not McCormack Baron filed the eviction action which the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County ultimately entertained.³

While the eviction action was pending in state court, Turner continued to pay her rent late. In August 2001, Turner learned of her eligibility for the federal section 8 rental assistance program.⁴ Consequently, she applied for a section 8 voucher, and shortly thereafter was notified that she would be issued section 8 vouchers to subsidize future rent. At around the same time, Turner also learned of an emergency shelter assistance program that the Urban League of Pittsburgh administered through which she believed she could obtain assistance to pay the back rent she still owed.

In October 2001, Turner proffered a section 8 voucher to McCormack Baron and notified it that she had an upcoming appointment with the Urban League to discuss assistance in paying past-due rent. Turner claims that McCormack Baron asserted that it would not accept her voucher because she had been habitually late in making rental payments.

Contemporaneously with the state court proceedings, Turner filed a petition in bankruptcy which delayed the state proceedings until June 2003.⁵ At that time Turner filed a counterclaim against Crawford Square and a separate petition seeking an injunction prohibiting her eviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Turner's state counterclaim and petition together alleged that Crawford Square: (1) wrongfully failed "to refer [Turner] to the social services which would have prevented [her] inability to pay the rent due," app. at 25; (2) engaged in a "wrongful and discriminatory refusal to accept a [section 8] voucher for federally-subsidized rent issued to [Turner]," app. at 25; (3) failed to consider a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed her to pay her rent late; (4) violated the notice of termination provisions in the lease; (5) initiated a retaliatory eviction action after she complained to the local housing authority; and (6) committed a variety of unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Pennsylvania law.

Notably, in the common pleas court, though Turner attributed her inability to pay her rent in a timely manner to her disability, she did not premise her allegation that there had been a "discriminatory" refusal of her section 8 vouchers based on her disability. Rather, she alleged that Crawford Square "had never accepted a Section 8 voucher on behalf of a current tenant initially approved for occupancy." App. at 101. Nor did Turner base any of her claims on the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., which formed the basis of an unsuccessful complaint she filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") charging defendants with housing discrimination.⁶ Instead, Turner based her allegations in the state court on a "Regulatory Agreement" executed by Crawford Square and the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, and a "Management Plan" executed by Crawford Square and McCormack Baron, pursuant to which Turner claimed rights as a third-party beneficiary.

On September 30, 2003, following a fourday trial, the court of common pleas found in favor of Crawford Square on its claims for eviction and damages, and ruled against Turner on her counterclaims. The court predicated its outcome on the merits of the controversy though the non-jury verdict by which it made its decision known merely stated the result the court reached. Turner was unsatisfied with the result and thus filed post-trial motions for relief which the court denied, explaining in its opinion that:

I found that [Crawford Square] did not wrongfully refuse to accept her Section 8 rent voucher because it was not required to do so as long as past-due rent remained in arrears. I found that Crawford Square did properly refer Ms. Turner to a social service agency (the Urban League), and that its alleged failure to refer Ms. Turner to other agencies with which she was in fact in contact was immaterial.

Finally, [Crawford Square] is correct that Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of action or defense of `retaliatory eviction' in this setting. In any event, I determined from the evidence at trial that Crawford Square's efforts to evict Ms. Turner were not taken in retaliation for any complaints she made, but instead were motivated solely by her failure to pay rent in a timely fashion.

App. at 21-22.

On August 18, 2004, Turner filed this action in the district court against defendants.⁷ Turner alleged that defendants violated the Fair Housing Act and discriminated against her on account of her disability by failing to refer her to the section 8 program and by refusing her section 8 rent vouchers as defendants had done with "non-disabled families."⁸ She also claimed that defendants violated the FHA by failing "to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services." App. at 177. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and the district court should abstain from entertaining the claim pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

On March 22, 2005, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that in light of Turner's prior state court action, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the subsequent federal action.⁹ The district court explained:

If the court were to assert subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, it would be ignoring the clear mandates of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. To do so would be tantamount to reviewing the final decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.... Such action is barred by Rooker-Feldman, as the constitutional claims at issue in this case are inextricably intertwined with the state court's decision.... In addition, if the court were to grant [Turner] the relief she seeks, it would necessarily have to take action that would render the state court's decision ineffectual.

App. at 7. Turner then filed a timely notice of appeal. By this opinion we adjudicate the appeal.

III. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court had jurisdiction over Turner's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 3613, and we have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the district court's application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is plenary. See Parkview Assocs. P'ship v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 323-24 (3d Cir.2000).

IV. DISCUSSION

1. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district court of jurisdiction in some circumstances to review a state court adjudication. The doctrine derives from the Supreme Court's opinions in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,...