This Opinion references two cases -- the above-captioned case as well as In re Shaw, Case No. 01-05217.  The Debtors requested an evidentiary hearing on their claim objection on the basis that this Court needs to take additional evidence as it relates to a Pennsylvania state court judgment which forms the basis for the creditor's claim in order for the Court to be able to properly determine whether the claim falls into any of the subparagraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), which would result in disallowance of the limitation of the amount of the claim.  The Debtors essentially want this Court to re-characterize the Pennsylvania state court judgment order by introducing additional evidence.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from holding an evidentiary hearing to examine whether the Pennsylvania Court's judgment was based upon an employment contract when the judgment denotes it was based upon a shareholder minority oppression claim.  See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).  Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to receive and consider extrinsic evidence pertaining to the Pennsylvania state court judgment.