USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11812
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-20508-JEM
PETER SPOREA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REGIONS BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2021)
Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 2 of 8
Peter Sporea, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting
Regions Bank, N.A.’s (“Regions”) motion to dismiss and dismissing his amended
complaint with prejudice as barred under res judicata, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2019, Sporea filed a pro se complaint against Regions, and then,
in March 2019, he filed an amended complaint. In the four-count amended
complaint, Sporea alleged that, in 2003, he and Union Planters Mortgage/Bank
(“Union”) entered into a mortgage note agreement and that Union sold the note to
Fannie Mae, which retained Regions as a servicer. Sporea asserted that Regions had
a duty to receive mortgage payments, process them toward the principle balance,
and issue monthly statements and that Regions had no authority to refinance, modify,
accelerate, or foreclose on the mortgage. He claimed that the action was not linked
to a foreclosure action already dismissed in 2014 or another action that was pending
in the “lower courts,” but instead claimed the action was for fraud or mistake with
malice, intent, and knowledge against Regions’ officers. He alleged that Regions
acted without authority to accelerate his mortgage payments and initiate a
foreclosure and failed to (1) issue him monthly statements, (2) process his payments
dating back to 2007, which were diverted to insurance policies, and (3) maintain a
history of his payments. Sporea asserted the district court had jurisdiction “based
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 3 of 8
on US Statutes & Rules/Codes.” Sporea requeted the district court enter a judgment
against Regions and dismiss its interest in the subject property.
Regions moved to dismiss the amended complaint and requested for judicial
notice of state court records relating to the foreclosure, as the case was one of several
that Sporea had filed pro se to seek review of a state court judgment of foreclosure.
Regions explained that, in 2008, Sporea and his wife had defaulted on their
foreclosure loan and that Regions had filed a foreclosure action in Broward County
circuit court that resulted in two foreclosure actions, three foreclosure judgments,
and several state court appeals that were affirmed. Regions argued that Sporea’s
claims were barred by res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Regions also
noted that another judge in the Southern District of Florida had dismissed a virtually
identical complaint and argued that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because Sporea failed to properly allege a basis for jurisdiction.
Regions attached several exhibits to its complaint, e.g., various state court records
relating to the state foreclosure actions. Sporea filed a response and moved to strike
Regions’s motion.
A magistrate judge denied Sporea’s motion to strike and granted Regions’s
motion for judicial notice, finding it was appropriate to consider the state court
records in deciding the motion to dismiss, as their accuracy could not be reasonably
questioned. The magistrate judge then issued a report and recommendation that
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 4 of 8
recommended Regions’s motion to dismiss be granted and Sporea’s amended
complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Addressing the elements of res judicata, the
magistrate judge found that: (1) the remedies sought in the state court action and the
instant case indistinguishable, as both sought to dismiss Regions’s interest in the
subject property; (2) the facts essential to the maintenance of both actions were
substantially the same, as they both concerned Regions’s alleged violations of its
duties as servicer of the mortgage; (3) both Sporea and Regions were parties to both
actions; and (4) the parties had the incentive to adequately litigate the claims in the
state action. As such, the magistrate judge found res judicata barred Sporea from
bringing the action. For sake of completeness, the magistrate judge analyzed the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and found the amended complaint subject to dismissal, as
it was seeking to relitigate a claim already decided in state court. And the magistrate
judge found the amended complaint was subject to dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, as Sporea failed to identity which “US Statutes & Rule/codes”
conferred jurisdiction. The magistrate also found amendment of the complaint
would be futile.
Sporea objected to the report and recommendation, which included a section
entitled “Notice of Partial Voluntary Dismissal” asserting that Sporea was
voluntarily dismissing all portions of his cause of action and arguments related to
the state court action except for whether Regions lacked authority to accelerate
4
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 5 of 8
payments and foreclosure and whether Regions failed to maintain a payment history.
Then, on May 6, 2020, the district court adopted the report and recommendation.
The district court found the magistrate judge did not err in taking judicial notice of
the state court proceedings and agreed with report’s conclusions on res judicata and
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. And, as to the notice of partial voluntary dismissal,
the district court found it “nonsensical,” as Regions’s ability to accelerate the
mortgage and foreclose on the subject property was precisely what the underlying
lawsuit concerned. As such, the district court dismissed Sporea’s amended
complaint with prejudice. This appeal ensued.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We analyze the district court’s decision to take judicial notice of certain facts
under an abuse of discretion standard. See Lodge v. Kondaur Cap. Corp.,
750 F.3d
1263, 1273 (11th Cir. 2014). We review de novo the district court’s application of
the res judicata doctrine. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach,
713 F.3d 1066, 1069–
70 (11th Cir. 2013).
III. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Sporea argues that the district court erred by (1) taking judicial
notice of his state court proceedings, (2) finding that his notice of partial voluntary
dismissal was ineffective, and (3) finding that both the res judicata and the Rooker-
5
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 6 of 8
Feldman doctrines barred his amended complaint. We find these arguments without
merit and address each in turn.
We first address Sporea’s judicial notice argument. A district court may
judicially notice a fact that “is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is
generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);. A district court may also consider judicially
noticed documents without converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary
judgment. See Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc.,
187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of
documents related to Sporea’s state court action. Indeed, the state court proceedings
documents were not subject to reasonable dispute, as their accuracy could be readily
determined from a source whose accuracy could not reasonably be questioned. See
Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney’s Office,
592 F.3d 1237, 1255 (11th Cir. 2010) (taking
judicial notice of records from state and federal proceedings in a
42 U.S.C. § 1983
action).
Turning to Sporea’s partial voluntary dismissal argument, it is true that a
plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the parties sign a
joint stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii). However, the rule only allows
actions to be dismissed in their entirety. See Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891
6
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 7 of
8
F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018). Therefore, the parties cannot use a joint stipulation
under Rule 41(a)(1) to dismiss only certain claims without dismissing the entire
action, and a stipulation that purports to do so is invalid.
Id. We therefore find that
the district court did not err in rejecting Sporea’s attempt to partially dismiss his
claims because, without a court order, a partial dismissal is the improper avenue to
drop a particular claim. See
id.
Finally, we address Sporea’s res judicata argument. When we are asked to
give res judicata effect to a state court judgment, we must apply the res judicata
principles of the state whose decision is set up as a bar to further litigation. Green
v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm’n,
563 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, that state
is Florida. Res judicata applies under Florida law when there is identity of: (1) “the
thing sued for”; (2) the cause of action; (3) the persons or parties to the action; (4)
the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made; and (5)
the original claim has been disposed of on the merits. Lozman, 713 F.3d at 1074.
For the second criteria, the identity of the cause of action is a matter of “whether the
evidence or facts necessary to maintain the suit are the same in both actions.” Id.
(quoting Tyson v. Viacom, Inc.,
890 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (en
banc)). For the fourth criteria, the test is whether the parties involved in the state
action had the incentive to adequately litigate the claims in the same capacity as they
would in the federal action. See McDonald v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
821 F.2d
7
USCA11 Case: 20-11812 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 8 of 8
1563, 1566 (11th Cir. 1987). Under Florida law, the pendency of an appeal does not
diminish the preclusive effect of a judgment. See Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Paulucci,
914 So.2d 507, 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (en banc). Additionally, under Florida
law, res judicata applies to claims that could have been raised in the prior action.
See Long v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr.,
924 F.3d 1171, 1179 (11th Cir. 2019).
Here, the district court did not err by dismissing Sporea’s amended complaint
as barred by res judicata under Florida law because there had been a final judgment
on the merits in Florida and because the “thing sued for,” facts, parties, and incentive
were the same in both actions, i.e., Sporea sought to invalidate Regions’s interest in
the property and obtain a judgment that Regions had failed in its duties as a loan
servicer and had wrongfully diverted over $200,000 in mortgage funds. And
Sporea’s pending appeal of the final amended judgment did not diminish the
preclusive effect of the judgment.
Accordingly, as the district court properly dismissed Sporea’s amended
complaint as barred by res judicata, we need not address Sporea’s additional
arguments. We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice
the amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
8
