Whether a court may selectively apply the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to preclude federal subject matter jurisdiction by excluding from consideration a jury verdict that found wrongful conduct by the adverse parties, relevant to the issue of extrinsic fraud in the state court action

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal dis: trict court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over appeals from state court judgments. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the Rooker: Feldman doctrine does not extend to claims of “extrinsic fraud on a state court,” that is, claims that an “adverse party” perpetrated an “illegal act or omission” to fraudulently obtain the “state court judgment.” ; Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (th ; Cir. 2004). Collagen inventor, Ahmad Alkayali, sued Neocell Corporation and his former business partners after they dissolved his 72% equity share in the collagen supplement factory, Healthwise, without informing him or providing compensation. The jury awarded Alkayali damages and punitive damages. The California Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the jury verdict, affirming that the actions of Neocell and his former business partners were unjust and malicious and confirmed his 72% ownership ; of Neocell. Alkayali v. Boukhari, No. E066230, 2019 WL 1499478 (Cal. Ct. App. April 5, 2019) (the “Healthwise Action”). Subsequently, in 2022, Petitioners filed a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations in the taking of Petitioners’ property, their 72% ownership of Neocell, under color of state law and for a permanent injunction that remains in effect today prohibiting Alkayali from engaging in commerce in the nutritional health supplement field forever. To this day, Costco refuses to carry any of Mr. Alkayali’s products aware of the permanent injunction. iii The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court properly dismissed Petitioners’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the applicable statute of limitations. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). The Ninth Circuit concluded that the FAC is a de facto appeal of a state court’s “multiple rulings” that Petitioners “have no ownership interest in Neocell”, referring to Quadri v. Alkayali, No. G042758, 2011 WL 810327 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2011), and the denial of their Motion to Set Aside in Quadri v. Alkayali, No. G054914, 2018 WL 1870732, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. April 19, 2018). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a court may selectively apply the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to preclude federal subject matter jurisdiction by excluding from consideration a jury verdict that found wrongful conduct by the adverse "parties, relevant to the issue of extrinsic fraud in the state court action. 2. Whether a permanent injunction prohibiting an individual from forever engaging in commerce in his chosen occupation is facially unconstitutional and a continuing injury.