added). 61 . Ex. D, Docket No. 14-4 at 7:4-11. 62 . Id. 63 . The doctrine takes its name from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). In Rooker, the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal statutory jurisdiction over direct appeals from state courts lies exclusively in the Supreme Court and is beyond the original jurisdiction of federal district courts. 263 U.S. at 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149. In Feldman, the Supreme Court held that this jurisdictional bar extends to particular claims that are "inextricably intertwined” with those a state court has already decided. 460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303. 64 .Cf In re Albert, 206 B.R. at 641 (<HOLDING>). 65 . To the extent that PJAMM seeks to create
holding that notwithstanding the chapter 7 trustees postpetition settlement of state court litigation attorney had a valid charging lien in settlement proceeds for the attorneys prepetition services where services were beneficial to the estate holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed holding that the entirety of litigation settlement proceeds was taxable income to client not net after payment of attorney fees holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages