Lawsuit Against Attorneys for Alleged Conduct During a State-Court Action Not Blocked by Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Holds Fifth Circuit

In English v. Crochet, No. 25-30074 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025), a Fifth Circuit panel partially reverses a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of a diversity case, holding in relevant part that the tort suit is not blocked by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine even though it calls into doubt monetary sanctions entered by a state-court judge.

“In April 2021, [Louisiana State University employee Sharon] Lewis, represented by [attorney Larry] English, filed lawsuits in Louisiana state and federal court” against LSU and other defendants. “The federal court action alleged violations of the federal RICO statute. The state court action alleged violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act.”

In the state action, defendants Vicki Crochet and Robert Barton – one-time outside counsel to LSU – moved for and won $330,461.97 in litigation sanctions jointly and severally against English and Lewis for a host of alleged violations of court rules and vexatious litigation.

“English thereafter filed the instant lawsuit against Crochet, Barton, and their law firm (collectively, Defendants–Appellees), asserting four claims under Louisiana law: (1) defamation; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED); (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (4) civil conspiracy.” The claims related to actions allegedly taken by the defendants in state court to obtain sanctions.

In relevant part, “English’s defamation claim is based on allegations that Defendants– Appellees, through their counsel, ‘published statements in federal and state court that Larry English . . . fabricated evidence when he filed pleadings on behalf of his client Sharon Lewis.’ He further alleges that Defendants– Appellees ‘specifically published statements that Lewis [sic] description of wire and mail communications between [Defendants–Appellees] and Les Miles lawyer [sic] . . . were fabricated.’”

The district court dismissed the action under Rooker-Feldman, the jurisdictional doctrine that states, as a rule, that federal district courts lack power to entertain actions seeking to reverse orders of state courts.  “The district court concluded that ‘the crux of Plaintiff’s defamation claim[] is that the state court sanctions rulings were erroneous,’ which ‘essentially amounts to a challenge in federal court over a state court sanction order’ barred by Rooker–Feldman.”

The Fifth Circuit reverses in part. With respect to the defamation claim, it finds no warrant to dismiss under Rooker-Feldman. “It is true that one of the many reasons the state court imposed sanctions was its finding that English had fabricated evidence. But that fact is not dispositive” in applying Rooker-Feldman. “The key inquiry . . . is the source of the injury alleged in the federal complaint. If the injury stems from the state court decision itself, then Rooker–Feldman bars federal jurisdiction. But if the injury arises from the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff asserts an independent claim not subject to Rooker–Feldman.”

The panel concludes that the focus of the case is “the Defendants–Appellees’ conduct (through their counsel) during the sanctions proceedings . . . . English does not seek to overturn the state-court judgment; rather, he pursues damages for injuries caused by Defendants–Appellees’ allegedly defamatory statements, through counsel, made during those proceedings. While Defendants–Appellees’ alleged conduct may have led to the state court judgment, which in turn caused additional harm, the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not apply.”

The panel also rejects the defendants’ attempt to expand the purview of Rooker-Feldman by including matters “inextricably intertwined” with a state-court judgment. “[O]ur court and numerous federal circuit courts have made clear that the ‘inextricably intertwined’ standard does not expand the core holding” of Rooker-Feldman. “Because the source of the injury asserted by English’s complaint is Defendants–Appellees’ conduct, not the state court judgment, Defendants– Appellees’ Rooker–Feldman arguments fail.”

The panel affirms dismissal of the infliction of mental distress claims, though, on the merits.