Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barden v. Fellowship Baptist, 01-1134 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1134 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT THE BARDEN & ROBESON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH OF No. 01-1134 VIENNA, by and through its Trustees; GLEN GAINER, III; CLAYTON BOND; KERMIT POLAN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-00-1005-6) Argued: December 4, 2001 Decided: January 8, 2002 Before WILKINS
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT THE BARDEN & ROBESON  CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH OF  No. 01-1134 VIENNA, by and through its Trustees; GLEN GAINER, III; CLAYTON BOND; KERMIT POLAN, Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-00-1005-6) Argued: December 4, 2001 Decided: January 8, 2002 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL ARGUED: Nathan M. Lyman, LYMAN & LYMAN, L.L.C., Albion, New York, for Appellant. Charles Edward McDonough, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Parkersburg, West Virginia, 2 BARDEN & ROBESON v. FELLOWSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Robert L. Bays, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: The Barden & Robeson Corporation (Barden) appeals the district court’s dismissal (for lack of subject matter jurisdiction) of its petition to compel arbitration in its contractual dispute with the Fellowship Baptist Church of Vienna, West Virginia. The district court explained in its opinion that state courts in West Virginia had already consid- ered Barden’s arbitration claim and had entered judgment against Barden in the contractual dispute. The district court found that Bar- den’s petition in federal court was in effect an attempt to upset the judgment of the West Virginia circuit court and held that the Rooker- Feldman doctrine precluded federal court jurisdiction over Barden’s petition. We agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barden’s petition to compel arbitration, and we affirm on that court’s reasoning. See Barden & Robeson Corp. v. Fel- lowship Baptist Church of Vienna, No. 6:00-1005 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 9, 2001). AFFIRMED
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer