Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Number: 4:21-cv-1313
Judge: Henry Edward Autrey
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pro Se
Defendant's Attorney: Charles S. Pulliam
Description: St. Louis, Missouri plaintiff, sued Defendant on a breach of insurance contract theory claiming more than $75,000 in damages.
On November 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants for “trespass, wrongful eviction, slander, libel and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Plaintiffs asserted four counts against Defendants: (1) Unlawful Trespass; (2) Wrongful Foreclosure; (3) Slander; and (4) “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Stress.”
On December 16, 2019 a foreclosure sale took place on the premises situated in St. Louis County, State of Missouri, described and known as 21 W. Waymire Ave, St. Louis, MO 63119. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2004-OPT2, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2004-OPT2, purchased the property.
On March 10, 2020, Defendant Wells Fargo filed its Petition in Unlawful Detainer against Plaintiffs in state court (St. Louis County Associate Circuit Court case number 20SL-AC07599 referred to herein as “state court case”). On December 2, 2020, Defendant Wells Fargo filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in Unlawful Detainer in the state court case. On March 3, 2021, a hearing on Defendant Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment in the state court case was held. Wells Fargo's motion was granted, and Judgment was entered in favor of Wells Fargo granting restitution of the premises found to have been unlawfully detained: 21 W Waymire Ave, St. Louis, MO 63119. The court also awarded damages against Earnestine Decasual-Smith and Gerald Liddell at the rate of $5, 000.00 per month for rents and profits from December 16, 2019 to the date of judgement (March 3, 2021) and until restitution of possession is made, together with costs and expenses.
On September 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed in the state court case a “Petition to Vacate Void Orders and Recuse” and moved the court to void the previously entered judgment against them.
On October 25, 2021, Defendant Wells Fargo filed its Order to Issue Execution in Unlawful Detainer for Possession of Premises pursuant to RSMo §534.370. On October 28, 2021, Associate Circuit Court Judge the Honorable Matthew H. Hearne granted the Order to Issue Execution in Unlawful Detainer. On October 29, 2021, the clerk issued the Execution in Unlawful Detainer for Possession of Premises.
On November 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed in the state court case the following purportedly also filed in the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri:
a. Notice of Removal to Federal Court;
b. Affidavit of Facts in Support of Notice of Removal;
c. Notice of Lis Pendis [sic];
d. Verified Complaint for Equitable Relief to Set Aside Trustee Sale and for Damages; and e. Joinder in Notice of Removal Action.
On November 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed in the state court case a document titled, “Notice of Special Divine Appearance and Affidavit in Support of Dismiss of Matter for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.” This document identifies that it was to be “served upon the circuit court of St. Louis County, case number 20SL-AC07599, et al.”
Also on November 2, 2021, Plaintiffs filed in the state court case a document titled, “Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1333 and 1337, 28 U.S.C. Sect 1516, RSMo 1.010. Article V, Sec. 4, Rules 94”.
On November 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed in the state court case the following documents:
a. Petition to Challenge Jurisdiction of Eviction Court The Eviction is Intertwined with a title dispute in Federal Court;
b. Counter-Claim 2.5 Million dollar Civil Claim for Trespass, Wrongful Eviction, Slander, Libel, and Intentional Emotional Distress, - The Claim is also against the Defendant's Assets;
c. Writ of Mandamus Demand to Strike Defendant's “Notice of Appearance” from the Record, A corporation Cannot Represent it's Self in Court.
On November 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District.
On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings and an Application for Stay of Execution Ex Parte, in the Associate Circuit Court of St. Louis.
The Motion to Stay was denied per RSMo §534.380, which states as follows:
Judgment stay for appeals. - Applications for appeals shall be allowed and conducted in the manner provided as in other civil cases. Application for appeal shall not stay execution for restitution of the premises unless the defendant gives bond within the time for appeal. The bond shall be for the amount of the judgment and with the condition to stay waste and to pay all subsequently accruing rent, if any, into court within ten days after it becomes due, pending determination of the appeal, subject to the judge's discretion. However, in any case in which the defendant receives a reduction in rent due to a local, state or federal subsidy program, the amount of the bond shall be reduced by the amount of said subsidy. Execution other than for restitution shall be stayed if the defendant files a bond in the proper amount at such time as otherwise provided by law.
On November 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed “Supersedeas Bond to Stay execution on Appeal of Summary Ejectment Judgment Private Surety Bond.” On November 15, 2021, The Order Granting Stay and Accepting Supersedeas Bond was denied by Judge Robert M. Heggie.
On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Gerald Liddell filed a Request for Ex Parte Emergency Hearing. This was also denied by the Duty Judge on the same day.
On November 16, 2021, the sheriff's return of service of Execution in Unlawful Detainer for Possession of Premises was filed in the state court case demonstrating execution of the possession writ.
On November 24, 2021, the acknowledgment receipt of the Notice of Appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District was filed in the state court case.
In their Motion, Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Decasual-Smith v. The Territory of Mo. (E.D. Mo. 2022)
Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a basis for this Court's jurisdiction and have failed to dispute the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must therefore be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 22] is GRANTED.
Decasual-Smith v. The Territory of Mo. (E.D. Mo. 2022)