and in this particular case, it is appropriate to decide the issues now. 14 . See infra discussion at p. 270-71. 15 . See Amend. Compl. ¶¶21, 22 (“The proof of claim demanded attorneys fees of $1,925 and costs of $1,898.44; a total of $3,823.44; Plaintiff paid the sums demanded on or about July 2007.”) 16 . As noted above, Shapiro & Diaz are not defendants to these counts. 17 . Both Countrywide and Shapiro & Diaz assert that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court from ruling on the foreclosure related claims because Plaintiffs are effectively asking this court to review the accuracy of a state court judgment, namely the judgment of foreclosure against Plaintiffs. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Plaintiffs may be trying to
holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine excludes from this courts subject matter jurisdiction cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments holding that judgments entered by a court having subject matter and personal jurisdiction are not void holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine