Mary Ellen Chajkowski v. JOSEPH J. BOSICK, Individually

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-4449
MARY ELLEN CHAJKOWSKI,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH J. BOSICK, Individually; PIETRAGALLO BOSICK
& GORDON, Salary Reduction Profit Sharing Plan;
WILLIAM A. PIETRAGALLO, JR., Trustee of the Plan;
MARK GORDON, Trustee of the Plan; MAX BAER, Justice
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; KIMBERLY EATON,
Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County; PATRICK R. TAMILA; KATE FORD ELLIOTT, Judge
of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; CORREALE STEVENS,
Judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania; JOAN
ORIE MELVIN, Judge of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania;
JAMES R. CAVANAUGH, Judge of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-01582)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
JUNE 6, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed June 6, 2005)

-- 1 of 5 --

2
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Mary Ellen Chajkowski, appeals from the District Court’s order
dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its subsequent order
denying her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction to review the final decision
of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of a dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see U.S. ex rel. Paranich v. Sorgnard, 396 F.3d
326, 331 (3d Cir. 2005), and review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for an
abuse of discretion. See Le v. Univ. of Pennsylvania., 321 F.3d 403, 405-06 (3d Cir.
2003). For essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we will affirm.
In October 2004, Chajkowski brought a civil action in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania purportedly raising “constitutional
questions” and asserting ERISA claims against ex-husband Bosick, Bosick’s law firm,
trustees of the firm’s Salary Reduction Profit Sharing Plan, and numerous judges of the
Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania as well as the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County. Basically, Chajkowski alleged that the state courts erred in accepting
the values of her ex-husband’s ERISA assets – values that had been stipulated to by her
attorney – and in using those values to render (and uphold on appeal) an equitable

-- 2 of 5 --

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine embodies the principles set forth by the Supreme1
Court in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
3
distribution order of the marital estate, and in failing to timely enforce its own
“Bifurcation Order.” Chajkowski sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
monetary damages.
In an order entered on October 21, 2004, the District Court concluded that the
factual allegations in Chajkowski’s complaint amounted to nothing more than a collateral
attack on the state court judgements rendered in connection with her divorce proceedings,
and that dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was
required. While recognizing that a pro se plaintiff would ordinarily be afforded an1
opportunity to amend the complaint or show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the District Court determined that such action would be
futile in the instant case given the “fatal Rooker-Feldman defect.” The District Court
likewise concluded that Chajkowski failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of its
dismissal decision was warranted, and an order was thus entered on November 2, 2004,
denying her motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). This timely appeal followed.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts cannot entertain
constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state adjudication. See
FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996).
A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a prior state adjudication if:

-- 3 of 5 --

4
the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly
decided the issues before it. In other words, Rooker-Feldman precludes a
federal action if the relief requested in the federal action would effectively
reverse the state decision or void its ruling. . . . If the relief requested in the
federal action requires determining that the state court’s decision is wrong
or would void the state court’s ruling, then the issues are inextricably
intertwined and the District Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear
the suit.
FOCUS, 75 F.3d at 840 (quoting Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th
Cir. 1995)). Moreover, a District Court does not have jurisdiction over “challenges to
state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those
challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” See Feldman,
460 U.S. at 486.
Upon careful review of the record, we agree with the District Court that it lacked
jurisdiction to review Chajkowski’s complaint. As appellees correctly assert, Chajkowski
was afforded the opportunity to litigate the claims set forth in her complaint in the state
courts, and indeed she did so with the help of counsel through two complete rounds of
appeals. Granting her the requested relief would be the equivalent of allowing her to use
the federal courts as a forum to appeal a state court judgment and falls squarely within the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which applies to “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the District
Court proceedings commenced and inviting District Court review and rejection of those
judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct.
1517, 1521-22 (2005).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
We further reject as meritless Chajkowski’s contention that this case somehow
falls within an exception to the Rooker-Feldman bar because the state court judgment was
rendered “nonfinal” as a result of the state court’s failure to enforce its bifurcation order,
and dispose of it without further discussion. Finally, Chajkowski’s reliance on Twin City
Fire Ins. Co. v. Adkins, 400 F.3d 293 (6 Cir. 2005), is misplaced as Rooker-Feldmanth
was found not applicable in that case simply because the doctrine “does not apply to bar a
suit in federal court brought by a party that was not a party in the preceding action in state
court.” Id. at 297, quoting United States v. Owens, 54 F.3d 271, 274 (6 Cir. 1995). Asth
noted, not only was Chajkowski a party to the state court actions she challenges, she was
represented by counsel throughout and offers nothing to support her assertion that due
process considerations take this case outside the reach of Rooker-Feldman.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s orders
dismissing Chajkowski’s complaint and denying her motion for reconsideration.

-- 5 of 5 --