The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess
Present: The Honorable GARY ALLEN FEESS
Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None
Proceedings: (In Chambers)
In this action, Plaintiff Alexander Kasdan ("Plaintiff") alleges that various social workers from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS"), together with an attorney for the Children's Law Center of Los Angeles ("CLCLA"), Lloyd Bedell ("Bedell"), conspired to lie to the juvenile dependency court about Plaintiff, ultimately depriving him of custody of his children, as well as any visitation rights. (Docket No. 28 [First Amended Complaint ("FAC")].) Plaintiff lost these rights after a 12 day hearing in the dependency court, and has appealed the ruling to the California District Court of Appeal. Alex K. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., B245087 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2012); Alex K. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., B242711 (Cal. Ct. App. June 23, 2012).) The Court has already determined that these proceedings should be stayed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). However, the case appears to contain a more fundamental defect. Although clothed as an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and individual employees, it appears that Plaintiff seeks appellate review in this Court of the determinations rendered by the state juvenile dependency court. (Id.)
This Court has no appellate jurisdiction. "Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court is without jurisdiction to exercise appellate review of state court judgments." Labrada v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, No. CV 10-7373, 2010 WL 3911492, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010). The doctrine is designed to prevent "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2008).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because neither party addressed the doctrine in its briefing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,*fn1 (Docket No. 33), both parties may submit supplemental briefs, not to exceed ten pages, on the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to this action by close of business May 10, 2013.
Please note: Plaintiff's failure to respond to this OSC will be deemed consent to dismissal of the lawsuit.