Terri L. Stiles, et al. v. John Clifford, et al.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal dis­ trict court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over ap­ peals from state court judgments. Noel u. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148,1154 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the RookerFeldman doctrine does not extend to claims of “extrin­ sic fraud on a state court,” that is, claims that an “ad­ verse party” perpetrated an “illegal act or omission” to fraudulently obtain the “state court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th 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 Cali­ fornia Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the jury verdict, affirming that the actions of Neo­ cell and his former business partners were un­ just 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 viola­ tions 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 to­ day 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.