Woolsey v. Woolsey
Docket Number | 2:22-CV-12-TLS-APR |
Decision Date | 03 February 2022 |
Parties | JONATHAN DAVID WOOLSEY, Plaintiff, v. CORTNEY NA WOOLSEY n/k/a ROBSON, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1] filed on January 19, 2022, by the Defendant Cortney Na Woolsey n/k/a Robson. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff Jonathan David Woolsey's Motion to Modify Judgement of Divorce Regarding Custody, Parenting Time and Child Support [ECF No. 3] to this Court from the Cass County Circuit Court in Michigan. The Plaintiff objects to removal. ECF No. 6. For the forgoing reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Here, the Defendant alleges that she may properly remove the action because the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331 provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She also alleges that she may properly remove the action because the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 provides that federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C § 1332(a)(1). The Court is “always ‘obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction.'” Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 447 (7th Cir. 2000) . “A case must be remanded to state court if subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking or if the defendant failed to comply with the removal statute.” Ayotte v. Boeing Co., 316 F.Supp.3d 1066, 1072 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (citing GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., Inc., 718 F.3d 615, 625-26 (7th Cir. 2013)).
In this case, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.[1] Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review or reverse orders issued in a state court case. See Bauer v. Koester, 951 F.3d 863, 866 (7th Cir. 2020) ( ); Lewis v. Anderson, 308 F.3d 768, 772 (7th Cir. 2002) ( ). In essence, the Rooker- Feldman doctrine “prevents a state-court loser from bringing suit in federal court in order effectively to set aside the state-court judgment.” Gilbert v. Ill. St. Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, because the Plaintiff seeks modification of the state court's judgment of divorce, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional bar. This Court has no authority to modify the orders of the state court.
In addition, federal subject matter jurisdiction is limited by the “domestic relations” exception, which prevents federal courts from issuing orders involving divorce, decrees of alimony, and child custody orders. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); Syph v. Arce, 772 Fed.Appx. 356, 357 (7th Cir. 2019) (the plaintiff's child-support obligations “falls squarely within the domestic-relations exception”) that the suit challenging ; Jones v Brennan, 465 F.3d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 2006) (). The Defendant seeks removal of the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Judgement of Divorce Regarding Custody, Parenting Time and Child Support. The Court lacks subject jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial