Filed: Dec. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1488 _ CATHY C. CARDILLO, Appellant v. MARK NEARY, In his Personal Capacity as Clerk of the Supreme Court of New Jersey; BONNIE C. FROST, In her Personal Capacity as Chair of the Disciplinary Review Board; CHARLES CENTINARO, In his Personal Capacity as Director of the Office of Attorney Ethics; MARVIN WALDEN, JR., Esq., In his Personal Capacity as Secretary of the District IV Fee Arbitration Committee; AURELIO VINCITO
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1488 _ CATHY C. CARDILLO, Appellant v. MARK NEARY, In his Personal Capacity as Clerk of the Supreme Court of New Jersey; BONNIE C. FROST, In her Personal Capacity as Chair of the Disciplinary Review Board; CHARLES CENTINARO, In his Personal Capacity as Director of the Office of Attorney Ethics; MARVIN WALDEN, JR., Esq., In his Personal Capacity as Secretary of the District IV Fee Arbitration Committee; AURELIO VINCITOR..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 18-1488
_____________
CATHY C. CARDILLO,
Appellant
v.
MARK NEARY, In his Personal Capacity as Clerk of the Supreme Court of New Jersey;
BONNIE C. FROST, In her Personal Capacity as Chair of the Disciplinary Review
Board; CHARLES CENTINARO, In his Personal Capacity as Director of the Office of
Attorney Ethics; MARVIN WALDEN, JR., Esq., In his Personal Capacity as Secretary of
the District IV Fee Arbitration Committee; AURELIO VINCITORI, In his Personal
Capacity as Fee Arbitrator of the District IV Fee Arbitration Committee; MEGAN
BURNS
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 3-16-cv-02347)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 11, 2018
______________
Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 28, 2018)
______________
OPINION*
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
______________
VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.
Cathy Cardillo appeals the District Court’s order dismissing for her civil rights
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court sua sponte applied the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and determined that jurisdiction over her claim was lacking.
See generally Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983). On appeal, Cardillo argues that her
constitutional claims were never properly before the state court. As a result, she contends
that the District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was incorrect. For
the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
I.
Cardillo practiced law in New Jersey for a number of years before retiring and
moving to Portugal. After her retirement and relocation, a former client, Megan Burns,
submitted a claim with New Jersey’s District VI Fee Arbitration Committee (the
“Committee”), contesting Cardillo’s fee for past representation. The Committee
attempted to serve Cardillo with notice of the hearing concerning the dispute on three
separate occasions by way of certified mail sent to Cardillo’s former New Jersey address.
Because Cardillo no longer resided at that address, the certified mailings were returned to
the Committee as undeliverable. The dispute proceeded before the Committee without
Cardillo’s participation, and the Committee ultimately entered a decision adverse to
Cardillo.
2
When Cardillo became aware of the Committee’s decision, she sent an email to
the Office of Attorney Ethics (“OAE”), which oversees the Committee, seeking to reopen
the fee arbitration proceeding on the basis that she did not receive proper notice. The
gravamen of Cardillo’s argument is that the notice was insufficient because, pursuant to
N.J.R. 1:20-7(h), notice of Committee hearings must be provided either “by personal
service, or by certified mail (return receipt requested) and regular mail . . . .” Cardillo
argues that the Committee only sent certified letters, which are unable to be forwarded
and were therefore returned as undeliverable. Because she had her regular mail
forwarded to a friend in New Jersey, Cardillo alleges she would have been notified of the
Committee proceedings had the notices also been sent by way of regular mail.
Defendant Charles Centinaro, the acting Director of the OAE, denied Cardillo’s
request in a response email. Cardillo then appealed both the Committee’s decision and
the OAE’s denial to the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (“DRB”). Cardillo
alleged in her appeal to the DRB that she had not received proper notice of the
proceeding before the Committee, that the Committee knew she did not receive proper
notice, and that the proceeding should therefore be reopened.
The DRB determined that notice was proper, dismissed her appeal, and affirmed
the Committee’s decision. Cardillo next sought reversal of the DRB’s decision by filing
a notice and petition for review with the New Jersey Supreme Court. Defendant Mark
Neary, the Clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court, informed Plaintiff by letter that her
3
Petition would not be considered because decisions rendered by the DRB are final and
not appealable to the New Jersey Supreme Court. 1
Cardillo then filed suit in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a
deprivation of her procedural due process rights predicated upon the insufficiency of the
notice. Cardillo moved for summary judgment, and Defendants moved to dismiss. The
District Court administratively terminated these motions by letter and, sua sponte,
directed the parties to brief the question of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over
Cardillo’s claims.
The District Court subsequently concluded that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed Cardillo’s amended
complaint. In finding as much, the court stated that:
[Cardillo’s] fundamental argument remains the same[:] the
letter-only manner of service selected by the Committee was
deficient in that it resulted in her deprivation of her right to
participate in the fee arbitration hearing. In other words, the
harm that [Cardillo] claims in this Court, deprivation of her
alleged due process right to adequate notice under the United
States Constitution, is coextensive with the basis of her appeal
to the DRB, and her attempted petition to the New Jersey
Supreme Court.
(Appellee Appx. 23–24). Cardillo timely appealed.
1
Pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:20A, a fee arbitration decision rendered by the
Committee is final and binding upon the parties, with no right to appeal the merits of the
decision and a very limited right to appeal procedural defects in the proceedings. Rule
1:20A-3 permits Committee decisions to be appealed to the DRB where “the
[Committee] failed substantially to comply with the procedural requirements of [N.J.R.
1:20A], or there was substantial procedural unfairness that led to an unjust result. . . .”
N.J.R. 1:20A-3(c)(2). Decisions rendered by the DRB are final and not appealable to the
New Jersey Supreme Court. See N.J.R. 1:20-16(d).
4
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary review
“where the District Court dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Gould Elecs.
Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). We “may
affirm the District Court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.” Murray v.
Bledsoe,
650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
III.
The sole issue before this Court on appeal is whether the District Court properly
applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. On this issue, Cardillo argues that her procedural
due process claim was never properly before the DRB or the New Jersey Supreme Court.
[Pet. R. Br. At 6]. As such, she asserts that reliance upon Rooker-Feldman is
inappropriate because she has raised a discrete federal claim.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine strips federal courts of jurisdiction over
controversies “that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.” Williams v.
BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Great W. Mining &
Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP,
615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010)). Federal district
courts have “no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial
proceedings.”
Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482. However, the Supreme Court has held that the
applicability of the doctrine is “narrow” and “is confined to cases of the kind from which
the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before district court proceedings
5
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
We note as an initial matter that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine only applies to state
judicial proceedings and not to administrative or legislative proceedings. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 342 F.3d 242, 257 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing
Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476. The threshold question, therefore, is whether the New Jersey
fee arbitration proceeding is judicial or administrative. The New Jersey Supreme Court
established the fee arbitration system pursuant to that Court’s constitutional power to
regulate the practice of law and the discipline of practitioners. Guralnick v. Supreme
Court of N.J.,
747 F. Supp. 1109, 1111 (1990) aff’d
961 F.2d 209 (3d Cir. 1992). The
New Jersey Supreme Court appoints members of both the Committee and the DRB.
N.J.R. 1:20A-1 and 1:20-15. As such, we agree with the District Court’s determination
that, as “arms and agents” of the New Jersey Supreme Court that have been delegated
portions of that Court’s constitutional powers, adjudicative proceedings before the
Committee and the DRB are properly considered judicial, as opposed to administrative,
proceedings. (Appellee Appx. 24 n.5 (citing Application of LiVolsi,
85 N.J. 576, 597
n.22 (1981))).
In determining whether a proceeding is properly characterized as judicial in
nature, the Supreme Court has held that “[a] judicial inquiry investigates, declares, and
enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already
to exist. That is its purpose and end.” Prentis v. Atl. Coast Line, 211 U.S. 210, 226
(1908). “The proper characterization of an agency’s actions depends not upon the
6
character of the body, but upon the character of the proceeding. . . .” New Orleans Pub.
Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 371 (1989) (internal quotation and
bracketing omitted). Fee arbitration proceedings before the Committee contain many of
the hallmarks of judicial proceedings, including: initial and responsive pleadings; the
right to a hearing with the opportunity for all parties to be heard; the ability to compel the
attendance of witnesses sworn under oath; the production of documents; the use of
subpoenas; interpleader; and the ability to appeal. See N.J.R. 1:20A-3. The Committee
collects facts and issues a declaration based upon the current law.
Id. Here both the
nature of the body, which possesses the delegated authority of the New Jersey Supreme
Court, and the nature of the proceedings lead to the conclusion that the fee arbitration
system establishes a judicial proceeding.
The next question is whether the requirements of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are
satisfied here. Interpreting the holding in Exxon Mobile, we have concluded that four
requirements must be met in order for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to preclude federal
court jurisdiction: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff complains
of injuries caused by the state court [judgment]; (3) [that judgment was] rendered before
the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and
reject the state [judgment].” Great W. Mining, 615 F.3d at 166 (citation omitted). “The
second and fourth requirements are the key to determining whether a federal suit presents
an independent, non-barred claim.”
Id.
We find that all four requirements are present here and that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes federal jurisdiction. First, Cardillo lost in state court when the
7
Committee rendered an adverse decision and the DRB denied her appeal. Second, the
injury of which Cardillo complains––namely the putative deprivation of her procedural
due process right to adequate notice––resulted from the DRB’s determination that the
Committee’s notice was proper. Third, there is no dispute that Cardillo instituted her
federal action after she received notice from the New Jersey Supreme Court that her
appeal of the DRB decision would not be considered. Finally, we need not look any
further than the prayer for relief in Cardillo’s Amended Complaint (Appellee Appx. 4 at ¶
6) or her request to this Court in her briefing (Pet. R. Br. 7) to determine that she seeks
our review and rejection of the New Jersey judgment.
Cardillo’s argument that her constitutional claim was not properly before the DRB
or the New Jersey Supreme Court, and therefore beyond the ambit of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, is without merit. As the District Court concluded, the procedural
defect of which Cardillo complains––the insufficiency of the notice––is co-extensive
with her constitutional claim, and she has already availed herself of the opportunity to
raise these claims before the DRB. [Appellee Appx. 25-26]. We agree with the District
Court’s conclusion that, given the identical nature of the claims raised before the OAE
and DRB with those asserted here, any proceeding in federal court would “not so much
offer an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the notice before the Committee, but
rather [serve] to challenge the decision of the DRB that notice was adequate.” (Appellee
Appx. 26). This type of review of final state court determinations is exactly what
Rooker-Feldman seeks to preclude.
IV.
8
Because all four prongs of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are satisfied, we will
affirm the holding of the District Court.
9
