added). In this case, Yasquez’s lawsuit does not seek appellate review of the state court’s decision applying Florida’s forum non conveniens rules to his claims. Instead, Vasquez seeks review of the district court’s order that federal maritime law does not apply to his case, an issue not resolved by the state court. “[I]f United States law is applicable, the American court should retain jurisdiction rather than relegate the controversy to a foreign tribunal.” Szumlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line, Inc., 698 F.2d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Vasquez is not asking a federal court to review and reject a judgment of the state court because the Florida court never addressed the issue Vasquez asks us to resolve. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 487, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court determined that
holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine is broad enough to bar all federal claims that were or should have been central to the state court decision holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case