IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
I
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
) C. A. N0. 06-401-|\/IPT ___ p _ _ _
GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. ) - - F E ·
WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. ) __ __ . . ..... I ·l - · ·n = ·‘ .
. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP ) j j
NEAL J. LEVITSKY ) Apg I 2 ZIIIII QE
Defendants ) --I·· · ·s··· ‘ ··I· ‘ @ I
I iié i a - »2I » Is~ I
PLAlNTlFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION \@ 5 Fcmnf
TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION .
This is the response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss my First Amended
Complaint that I received on 04/ 04/2007. The main argument that Defendants rely upon
is the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. However, the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine and the reason why this case [and my amended complaint] cannot be dismissed
were extensively addressed in my “Plantiff’ s Answering Brief’ filed 09/08/2006. So, to
preserve the valuable judicial resources, I shall briefly summarize the reasons why this
amended complaint cannot be dismissed. For more details, I shall direct this Honorable
Court’s attention to the documents I previously filed.
ll. ARGUMENT
1. Rooker-Feldman doctrine cannot apply because there was no final state-
court judgment when this action was commenced.
Case 1:06-cv-00401-MPT Document 38 Filed O4/12/2007 Page 2 of 4
The judgment that Defendants rely upon was not final. The tinal
judgment from the Court of Common Pleas was rendered 06/28/2006, but my
Complaint was filed on 06/23/2006. The Delaware Supreme Court consistently
held that the post-trial motions suspend the finality of a civil judgmentl and that
an aggrieved party can appeal to the higher court only after a final judgment is
entered by the trial court.2 So, it is very clear that this essential element of “final
judgment" for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply is missing? Moreover, the
"tinal judgment" under this doctrine is the one from the highest state court
because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as explained in Exxon Mobil, was based
upon "28 U.S.C.S. §l257--which lodges appellate jurisdiction to reverse or
modify a state-court judgment exclusively in the Supreme Court". Currently, the
state court case is being reviewed by the Superior Court of Delaware and is not
yet decided.
2. My Amended Complaint Satisiies the Rule 8(a) Pleading Requirements
because it gives notice and the grounds upon which my claim rests.4
X ww- `
Li en Hsu (Pro Se Plaintiff)
108 Cardinal Cir
Hockessin, DE 19707-2044
(302)5'73-5458
[email protected]
I 2006 Del. LEXIS 391; and Tomasetti v. Wilmington Sav.
Fund Soc'y, FSB, 672 A.2d 61 (Del. 1996)
2 Lipson v. Lipson, 799 A.2d 345 (Del. 2001)
3 Exxon Mobil Com. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Com., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
" Nix v. Welch & White, P.A., 55 Fed. Appx. 71; (3d Cir, 2003)
Case 1:06-cv-00401-MPT Document 38 Filed O4/12/2007 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that two (2) copies of Plaintiffs attached documents were served on
April 10, 2007 on the following in the manner indicated below:
Wa US. Mail
Neal J. Levitsky, Esq.
Fox Rothschild LLP
919 N. Market Street, Ste. 1300
Wilmington, DE 19899
Lifeglgee Hsu (Pro Se Plaintiff)
108 Cardinal Cir
Hockessin, DE 19707-2044
(302) 573-5458
[email protected]
06-401-M n lnllllll an n lllll a n n an H 2 Df Mtn 2 Cmplnt
Case 1:06-cv-00401-MPT Document 38 Filed O4/12/2007 Page 4 of 4
U MMmm¤i:·i?i·`·;·i}·.:mr-1m·iri1m»»mum: 4``` ` 4* 4 -—-——- ; ---` e -4 . .aa` . ..`a~A z
Q __ LM, __,v__i ____, ___ __ _ _ ___ _ ___V E'; E — ·—·-·= ··~~-r·¤ JK V_r_ ij rgmvjm
pr ng 7 _ _; sn-__--“:$j__ $,1* ,,f’ ET Q if 4 =· ai 3 ¥ ` ~
gi §:aI Clé X` J2 E, M k` IN U I- ` ` .`, fi') . KS2! I: M
Q " V: ··-· L H_D,gte,1;¤];:rE,!gEp7vA:--; _;_@ ::2** air . V I; - ‘·r-;-\-=r¤·‘- _,,. i J: ` ,‘ _
_ 1: ll :: .2- _ `. ..` 4 V-» ‘ l N ;-:·‘ V : ` :,7; ` : `_
a»‘· 1 n_§jLjgh_;;_ ,... T? ;,.4?e.E¥2.a?iW..ea.: ..r'
‘ 5
i
l Pmaa T Vw-MH5 Gigi _ a _ 4
U MTED Smres "Df5T*<*<’~T CWRT
gqrq, }
u/m~·1W4,mu, we /?·F‘°f f
L{L$.M.&.
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms