Appellants asserted below. See Harper, 138 Fed.Appx. at 132-33 (dismissing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims); Figueroa v. Merscorp, Inc., 766 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1316 (S.D.Fla.2011) (dismissing a RICO claim under Rooker-Feldman); Distant v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 09-61460-CIV, 2010 WL 1249129, at *3 (S.D.Fla. Mar. 25, 2010) (unpublished)(“AIthough plead as conspiracy claims ..., Plaintiff is clearly asking this Court to invalidate the state court action by ruling that the state court foreclosure judgment is somehow void. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, ... this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, as Plaintiff seeks a de facto appeal of a previously litigated state court matter.”); Simpson v. Putnam Cnty. Nat’l Bank of Carmel, 20 F.Supp.2d 630, 633 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Wayne Weinberger, P.C., 994 F.Supp.
holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment holding that after a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed as the judgment is final holding that a foreclosure judgment was not subject to federal review under rookerfeldman and noting that the fact that plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure judgment was procured by fraud and conspiracy does not change that result holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale holding that 24 foreclosure was substantial under the facts of that case