context: . Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is "one of congressional intent ... where Congress has specifically granted jurisdiction to the federal courts, the doctrine does not apply."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding Rooker-Feld-man does not apply to disputes arising under Hague Convention because "Congress has expressly granted the federal courts jurisdiction to vindicate rights arising under the Convention."
citation_a.sentence: Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1085 n. 55 (9th Cir.2001) (concluding Rooker-Feld-man does not apply to disputes arising under Hague Convention because "Congress has expressly granted the federal courts jurisdiction to vindicate rights arising under the Convention.”); see also In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d at 1078-79 (Rooker-Feldman does not preclude collateral challenges to state court modification of automatic stay in bankruptcy).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 202 F.3d 1078, 1078-79
citation_b.parenthetical: Rooker-Feldman does not preclude collateral challenges to state court modification of automatic stay in bankruptcy
citation_b.sentence: Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1085 n. 55 (9th Cir.2001) (concluding Rooker-Feld-man does not apply to disputes arising under Hague Convention because "Congress has expressly granted the federal courts jurisdiction to vindicate rights arising under the Convention.”); see also In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d at 1078-79 (Rooker-Feldman does not preclude collateral challenges to state court modification of automatic stay in bankruptcy).