Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Retirement Plan, 07-1208. This looks like fun. It involves the interrelations between family law, ERISA, and most of all, civil procedure. Essentially there were divorce proceedings in state court. Then the plaintiff went to federal court. Then his ex wife moved to intervene (which was allowed) and then moved to dismiss on Rooker-Feldman grounds.
But, there are some issues to take note of:
First, the first weights whether the ex should have been allowed to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). It weights the notice she had and the balance of prejudices. It rejects the plaintiff’s argument that he was an overburdened poor person, noting that most of the courts that dealt with him thought he had a “scorched earth” approach to litigation.
The First rejects the Rooker-Feldman argument, simply because not only parallel litigation not trigger the doctrine, but it wasn’t clear whether the state court proceedings were really over and he wanted to attack them. Instead, the First says that the state court decisions had preclusive effect “even if the litigant is prepared to present different evidence or legal theories in the second action, or seeks different remedies.” It concludes (and here is the ERISA bit) that because the state court was issuing “Qualified Domestic Relations Orders” which are exempted from ERISA under 29 U.S.C. 1144(b)(7) that the state courts did have jurisdiction and therefore there is preclusive effect.
Finally, the First notes that the plaintiff didn’t make a valid reservation under England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 375 U.S. 411, 428 (1964), by “reserving” his right in state court to litigate a claim in federal court, by dropping a footnote, and besides England only applies when a party wishes to return to Federal Court, which is precisely where he was not.
Comments