NJ & CT News

'

Claim Seeking Damages for False FRO Filing Not Subject to Federal Abstention

A man who claims New Jersey court employees conspired to tar his reputation by planting a fake restraining order against him in their files has been given the go-ahead to sue the employees in their personal capacities. The plaintiff in Robinson v. State of New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Division, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3239 (3d Cir. 2/25/13), a Florida resident, filed a medical malpractice suit in Texas against dentists who treated him there. It is his belief that, in order to discredit his testimony in the medical malpractice case, the owner of the dental office in which the accused dentists practiced conspired with three court employees in New Jersey to place a false restraining order against the plaintiff in their files, backdating it to 1990. After the plaintiff discovered the restraining order's existence, he got it dissolved. Thereafter, he brought suit in federal court against the Family Division and the three New Jersey court employees, alleging violation of his Second Amendment rights and his civil rights (under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983), as well as claims under several state law theories, including defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed all the claims under the doctrine of federal abstention, explaining that the federal court could not review the state court decision that granted the restraining order.

However, on appeal, the pro se plaintiff successfully argued that he was not asking a federal court to review the state court decision to enter the final restraining order; instead he sought only damages from individuals and entities he thought unlawfully created that restraining order. The suit may go ahead against the three court employees who, although immune from suit in their official capacities under the 11th Amendment, are amenable to suit in their personal capacities. The Family Division, however, is exempt from suit under the 11th Amendment.

'

CONNECTICUT

Divorce in Foreign Court Leaves Connecticut Court Without Jurisdiction

The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in Zitkene v. Zitkus, 140 Conn. App. 856, has affirmed a trial-court dismissal of a divorce action brought by a Lithuanian woman whose marriage had previously been dissolved by a Lithuanian court. The trial court, granting comity to the Lithuanian decision, properly determined that there was no longer any marriage to dissolve, that it therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the case must be dismissed.

'

NEW JERSEY

NJ Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Name-Change Dispute

New Jersey's Supreme Court is considering an appeal of Emma v. Evans, A-2303-10, a case in which the Appellate Division reversed a lower court ruling that concluded divorced custodial parents have the ultimate say in whether to re-name their children. The intermediate appeals court found that such a presumption would not be gender-neutral because mothers most often exercise primary custody over the children of divorce. During oral arguments before the state's high court, Justice Anne Patterson questioned the mother's attorney about the possible impediment to settlements that a ruling in her client's favor could engender, because a father would be concerned that once the property settlement was signed, the mother could unilaterally change his child's last name. The attorney for the mother answered that perhaps these concerns could be addressed during pre-divorce negotiations.

'

Claim Seeking Damages for False FRO Filing Not Subject to Federal Abstention

A man who claims New Jersey court employees conspired to tar his reputation by planting a fake restraining order against him in their files has been given the go-ahead to sue the employees in their personal capacities. The plaintiff in Robinson v. State of New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Division, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3239 (3d Cir. 2/25/13), a Florida resident, filed a medical malpractice suit in Texas against dentists who treated him there. It is his belief that, in order to discredit his testimony in the medical malpractice case, the owner of the dental office in which the accused dentists practiced conspired with three court employees in New Jersey to place a false restraining order against the plaintiff in their files, backdating it to 1990. After the plaintiff discovered the restraining order's existence, he got it dissolved. Thereafter, he brought suit in federal court against the Family Division and the three New Jersey court employees, alleging violation of his Second Amendment rights and his civil rights (under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983), as well as claims under several state law theories, including defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed all the claims under the doctrine of federal abstention, explaining that the federal court could not review the state court decision that granted the restraining order.

However, on appeal, the pro se plaintiff successfully argued that he was not asking a federal court to review the state court decision to enter the final restraining order; instead he sought only damages from individuals and entities he thought unlawfully created that restraining order. The suit may go ahead against the three court employees who, although immune from suit in their official capacities under the 11th Amendment, are amenable to suit in their personal capacities. The Family Division, however, is exempt from suit under the 11th Amendment.

'

CONNECTICUT

Divorce in Foreign Court Leaves Connecticut Court Without Jurisdiction

The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in Zitkene v. Zitkus , 140 Conn. App. 856, has affirmed a trial-court dismissal of a divorce action brought by a Lithuanian woman whose marriage had previously been dissolved by a Lithuanian court. The trial court, granting comity to the Lithuanian decision, properly determined that there was no longer any marriage to dissolve, that it therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the case must be dismissed.

'