Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12676
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22588-DPG
ROBERT SARHAN,
ANABELLA SOURY,
a.k.a. Anabella Sarhan,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
H & H INVESTORS, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2020)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 2 of 6
This should be a straightforward foreclosure case. Yet the appellants have
done everything in their power to stay the case’s resolution. With this opinion, we
put a stop to it.
Appellants Robert Sarhan and Anabella Soury used to be married. During
their marriage, they owned a tree farm in South Florida. They eventually divorced,
and in the separation agreement, Soury divested any interest she had in the tree
farm property.
Sometime later, Sarhan grew late on his mortgage payments for the tree
farm. So his lender, appellee H & H Investors, foreclosed on the property in
Florida state court. Years of litigation followed, with the appellants raising a forest
of frivolous claims to delay the foreclosure. Among these arguments were claims
that the foreclosure judgment was void since Soury had not received a copy of the
judgment or had a chance to raise her defenses in state court.
The state courts of Florida rejected these contentions. Multiple judges
considered and rejected Soury’s claim that she had an interest in the property. In
fact, just a day before the appellants filed this case, a state court held that Soury
had no interest in the property, that she had received adequate due process in state
court, and that the foreclosure judgment was not void. That court also expressed
frustration with the appellants’ repeated abuse of the legal system. Florida’s Third
District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
2
Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 3 of 6
Having struck out in state court, the appellants set their sights on federal
court. They filed multiple lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida, generally
repeating their state court claims that the foreclosure judgment was void and that
Soury received insufficient process. The first district court dismissed their claims
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The second district court dismissed their
claims as frivolous and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The third district
court (from which we hear this appeal) dismissed the claims for the same reasons
as the second court in a paperless order.
The appellants now appeal. H & H Investors has moved for sanctions
against the appellants and their counsel for their frivolous conduct. On the merits,
we affirm the district court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. And given the
appellants’ (and their counsel’s) unabashed abuse of the legal system, we grant the
motion for sanctions. The appellants and their counsel are to pay double costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees related to this appeal.
I.
We review de novo a district court’s finding that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d
1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). We do the same when a court dismisses a case on its
own motion without prejudice. See Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d
1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007).
3
Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 4 of 6
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that federal courts cannot review state
court final judgments. Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260.1 The doctrine applies even to
federal claims raised in state court. Id. It also applies to claims “inextricably
intertwined” with a state court’s judgment. Id. A federal court claim is
inextricably intertwined if it would “effectively nullify” the state court judgment or
if it “succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues.”
Id. The doctrine does not apply, though, if the party lacked a “reasonable
opportunity” to raise the “federal claim in state proceedings.” Id.
Two district courts have held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the
appellants’ claims. Both were right. The appellants’ federal claims are mere
specters of those they have already lost in state court. There, the appellants urged
that the foreclosure judgment was void because it was not served on Soury and
because Soury did not receive adequate due process. Here, the appellants urge the
same thing. The state court gave Soury ample time to raise these issues in that
forum. See id. In fact, the state court rejected these claims on their merits, noting
that Soury had no interest in the property and that she had received whatever
process she was due in the foreclosure proceeding. Their federal claims here could
succeed “only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues.” See id.
1
The doctrine stems from the Supreme Court opinions defining its boundaries. See D.C. Court
of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–
16 (1923).
4
Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 5 of 6
And since federal relief would “effectively nullify” the state court judgment, id.,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the appellants’ claims. 2
II.
We may award double costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as a sanction
against appellants (and counsel) who bring a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
38; Taiyo Corp. v. Sheraton Savannah Corp., 49 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1995)
(holding that a party and its appellate counsel were “jointly and severally liable”
for costs and fees under Rule 38). This is a frivolous appeal. As the district court
told the appellants and their counsel, this case is a carbon copy of an earlier case
filed in the Southern District of Florida. That earlier case made the appellants and
their attorneys aware that their claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Their appeal to us is simply a request for a second second opinion. And
it’s just the latest in a line of frivolous arguments made to halt foreclosure in state
and federal court. It seems these appellants won’t take no for an answer. So
sanctions is the only answer we have left.
2
The appellants’ complaint also requests that we enjoin the state court in several ways. Though
the district court did not address these claims, we note that this relief would violate the Anti-
Injunction Act and that we see no applicable exception. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. So to the extent that
these requests fall outside the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we exercise our ability to affirm the
district court on any grounds supported in the record. See Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694
F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).
5
Case: 19-12676 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 6 of 6
III.
The district court’s order dismissing the case without prejudice is
AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings to
determine costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees related to the appellants’ frivolous
appeal. The appellants and their counsel shall be jointly and severally liable for
double costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees related to this appeal under Fed. R.
App. P. 38.
6