as well as damages. Madera, 586 F.3d at 230-31. The Third Circuit Court upheld the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded those courts from exercising jurisdiction over the Madera plaintiffs’ rescission claim, because “that claim was inextricably intertwined with the [state court] foreclosure judgment.” Id. at 232. The Bankruptcy and District Courts determined that granting rescission would negate the foreclosure judgment. Id. The Third Circuit agreed, determining that “a favorable decision for the Maderas in the federal courts would prevent the Court of Common Pleas from enforcing its order to foreclose the mortgage.” Id. See also Faust v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (In re Faust), 353 B.R. 94, 100 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.2006) (<HOLDING>) Similarly, in Knapper, the Third Circuit held
holding unfair trade practices and consumer protection law applicable to residential leases holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction 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 holding that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction under the rookerfeldman doctrine to hear a rescission claim brought under the pennsylvania unfair trade practices and consumer protection law after entry of a judgment in a state court mortgage foreclosure action because rescinding the loan would negate the state court judgment holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the purported state law claim for violation of the automatic stay and that any such claim could be brought only in bankruptcy court only