to name FPA as the landlord.... ” {Id. at 27, ¶ 42, and at 38, ¶ 53.) Additionally, the complaint alleges that plaintiffs have suffered financial and emotional distress as a result of defendants’ conduct. Construed this way, the civil court judgment and affirmation thereof were a cause of plaintiffs’ injuries, and this Court would necessarily have to review the state court judgment to decide plaintiffs’ claims. Cf. Stanley v. Hollings-worth, 307 Fed.Appx. 6, 9 (7th Cir.2009) (finding Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred malicious prosecution claim in which plaintiff “ask[ed] the federal district court to rule that the state court erred in its foreclosure judgment because of the misconduct of his litigation adversaries”); Nader v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 555 F.Supp.2d 137, 155 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Rooker-Feldman bars the claims
holding that rookerfeldman barred malicious prosecution claims related to previous eases that did not end in plaintiffs favor because to succeed on claims plaintiff would need to attack the validity of the prior judgments holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff