9th Cir.

TSATRYAN V. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

April 24, 2026 ·2:24-cv-08947-CBM-JPR ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Arthur Tsatryan's federal claims, ruling that his lawsuit functioned as an impermissible de facto appeal of prior state divorce judgments. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal review because the claims were inextricably intertwined with state court orders and lacked sufficient allegations of extrinsic fraud.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:34

Arthur Tsatryan, proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court order dismissing his action. His lawsuit alleged both federal and state law claims that arose directly from state court divorce proceedings. Tsatryan sought to challenge aspects of the divorce judgments in federal court. The district court dismissed the action, and Tsatryan appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the federal court should hear his claims despite the prior state court rulings.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine prevents federal district courts from reviewing final judgments of state courts, effectively barring federal suits that function as appeals of state court decisions. The panel concluded that Tsatryan's claims were a 'de facto appeal' of prior state court judgments or were 'inextricably intertwined' with those judgments. The court cited precedent establishing that the doctrine bars plaintiffs from seeking relief that would require the federal court to declare a state court judgment wrong. Additionally, the court addressed the 'extrinsic fraud' exception, which can sometimes allow federal review if a state court judgment was obtained by fraud that prevented the plaintiff from presenting their case. However, the Ninth Circuit found that Tsatryan did not allege facts sufficient to show that any alleged fraud on the court affected the state court judgments. Consequently, the exception did not apply, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Ninth Circuit's decision affirms the dismissal, leaving the underlying state court divorce orders intact and precluding federal review of the dispute. The ruling reinforces the strict application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in family law cases, warning that federal courts will not serve as a venue for relitigating state divorce judgments unless there is clear evidence of extrinsic fraud that prevented a fair hearing. The case is remanded with instructions to deny all pending motions.

Play