INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSNewport News, Virginia
Back to the record

Document text · Page 9 of 20

Seaview: FourLeaf’s adequate-protection memorandum, ECF 18-20

Text from the approved public copy. Page numbers follow the PDF sequence.

Open Source Document

Document page

Page options

This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.

9 8737319.1 Second, the federal plaintiff must complain of injuries caused by a state court judgment. Third, the plaintiff must invite district court review and rejection of that judgment. Fourth, the state court judgement must have been rendered before the district court proceedings commented. McKitchen v. Brown, 481 F3d 89, 97 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Hoblock v. Albany County Board of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir. 2005)); see also Buckskin Realty Inc. v. Windmont Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (In re Buckskin Realty Inc.), Case No. 1-13-40053-nhl, Adv. Pro. No.: 15-01004, 2016 WL 5360750, *4 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016). All four elements are present here. First, the Debtor “lost” in state court when the Virginia Circuit Court entered the Order Approving Sale thereby approving of the sale of the Property and setting forth the Virginia Circuit Court’s findings as to the sufficiency of the marketing of the Property and the purchase price, among other things. The Debtor’s bankruptcy petition and objective, as stated by Mr. Goldwasser, clearly is an attempt to correct and/or revisit the perceived injuries caused by the Order Approving Sale (described now, but not articulated at any time in the Receivership Proceeding. See, e.g., Buckskin Realty, 2016 WL 5360750, at *4 (“The key requirement in determining whether Rooker-Feldman applies is whether the federal court plaintiff complains of an injury caused by a state court judgment.”). The Debtor’s bankruptcy petition and Goldwasser Declaration also clearly seek this Court’s intervention to reject the effect of the Order Approving Sale. It does so by now challenging the marketing efforts of the Receiver, which efforts were expressly acknowledged and approved by the Virginia Circuit Court. Finally, it is undisputed that the Order Approving Sale was entered on Case 25-23251-MEH Doc 18-20 Filed 12/22/25 Entered 12/22/25 20:08:18 Desc Memorandum of Law Page 9 of 20 ANN public copy | complete ECF 18-20 | combined source PDF 464/478
Jump to an indexed page (20 of 20)

Report a privacy or text-extraction issue through Contact & Corrections.