With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which applied the ordinance — not any state-court judgment. Similarly, in Count II, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he City” may not deprive Get Back Up due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Compl. II56.) Therefore, neither count stems from any judgment of a state court. The fact that the Wayne County Circuit Court affirmed the BZA’s decision does not change the result. See McCormick, 451 F.3d at 394 (“The fact that the state court chose not to remedy the injury does not transform the subsequent federal suit on the same matter into an appeal, forbidden by Rooker-Feldman, of the state-court judgment.” (quoting Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 87-88 (2d Cir.2005))); Camp v. City of Charlevoix, 1:07-CV-980, 2008 WL 4185954, at *4 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 8, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this Court has subject-matter

A: holding that rookerfeldman does not apply when the plaintiffs injury rests not on the state court judgment itself but rather on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the defendant
B: holding that although the state court affirmed the zoning board of appeals dismissal of plaintiffs appeal the statecourt judgment did not trigger rookerfeldman where the complaint did not allege that the judgment itself violated federal law
C: holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment
D: holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim
B.