Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party may not challenge an arbitrator's authority to hear debt disputes through an FDCPA action in federal court while related state proceedings are pending, according to a federal district court in Missouri.

In Lavander v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., No. 07-0015-CV-W-FJG, 2008 WL 695399 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2008), Lavander and other plaintiffs (collectively "Lavander") entered into credit agreements with MBNA. Law firm Wolpoff sought to recover Lavander's MBNA account debts through arbitration proceedings pursuant to the Lavander's credit agreement.

While state court proceedings were pending regarding the arbitration, Lavander brought claims against Wolpoff in federal court. Lavander alleged that Wolpoff had violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) by allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law during collection proceedings and by participating in arbitration proceedings after Lavander had disputed the arbitrator's authority to hear the claims.

The Court held that claims of unauthorized practice of law were not cognizable under the FDCPA and dismissed those claims.

The Court also held that the remaining claims were preempted by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars a disappointed party in a state court action from seeking the equivalent of appellate review in a federal court by alleging that the state action violated the party's federal rights. According to the Court, Lavander's FDCPA claims arising from allegedly improper participation in arbitration proceedings were "indirect attempt[s] to challenge the validity of the arbitration awards" that were the subject of pending state court actions.

Because the Lavander's allegations were "inexorably intertwined" with the subject of the state court proceedings, the Court held it was without jurisdiction to hear the matter and dismissed all claims.