Legal Opinion
Emert v. Ratekin
District Court, S.D. California
Decided September 22, 2021No. 3:21-cv-01570Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT ANTHONY EMERT, Case No.: 21-cv-01570-BTM- AHG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 COMMISSIONER PATTI C. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING RATEKIN, 15 CASE WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. 16 17 On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Motion to Proceed 18 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons discussed below, the IFP Motion is 19 granted and the Complaint is dismissed as barred under the Rooker-Feldman 20 doctrine. 21 22 DISCUSSION 23 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 24 Upon…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Kimberly Grant v. Unifund CcrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014