United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Eugene Villarreal, et al.
State of New Jersey, et al.
HAND DELIVERY OR U.S. MAIL Eugene & Soon Sik Villarreal,
ECF All Counsel for Defendants
MADELINE COX ARLEO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiffs Eugene Soon Sik
Villarreal (“Plaintiffs”), ECF No. 1, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF
Nos. 11, 20, 38. Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motions.
ECF Nos. 17, 24, 28, 31, 44. On January 22, 2019, Plaintiffs
also filed an ex parte application for an order to
stay their eviction. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants' motions are GRANTED and
Plaintiffs' ex parte application for injunctive
relief is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiffs' Complaint is not clear, it appears that this
matter arises out of foreclosure proceedings instituted
against Plaintiffs in New Jersey Superior Court on March 17,
2009. See Compl. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
engaged in illegal acts to deprive them of their property
following the filing of the foreclosure complaint. See
id Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that several
Defendants fabricated signatures on court filings. See
id Plaintiffs therefore filed the instant action on June
12, 2018 against numerous public entities, public employees,
and private individuals alleging violations of their due
process rights and their rights under “federal Public
Law 39-26.” See id. at 14.
23, 2018, Defendant Michael Saudino, in his official capacity
as Bergen County Sheriff and in his individual capacity,
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 11. Defendant
Saudino argued, among other things, that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 11.1 at 22-28. On
August 15, 2018 and November 21, 2018, the remaining
Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, but
joined Defendant Saudino's motion with respect to its
argument that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
ECF Nos. 20, 38.
the Court agrees that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
the Court need not address Defendants alternative arguments
deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
a district court must first decide whether the
defendant's motion presents a facial or factual attack.
See Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d
347, 357 (3d Cir. 2014). A facial attack challenges subject
matter jurisdiction “without disputing the facts
alleged in the complaint, and it requires the court to
‘consider the allegations of the complaint as
true.'” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d
333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Petruska v. Gannon
Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006)). In
contrast, a factual attack challenges the factual allegations
in the complaint, either through the filing of an answer or
otherwise presenting competing facts. Id.
Defendants argue that the facts pled do not establish subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Thus, Defendants' motions must therefore be
construed as a facial attack. See In re Horizon
Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625,
632 (3d Cir. 2017). Accordingly, in considering
Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court accepts the
facts in the Complaint as true and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Constitution
Party of Pa., 757 F.3d at 358.
argue that Plaintiffs claims are nothing more than an attack
on the state court's judgment of foreclosure. Therefore,
Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject matter