Alexander v. Whitman
| Decision Date | 23 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-5414,95-5414 |
| Citation | 114 F.3d 1392 |
| Parties | Karen ALEXANDER; Dennis Drazin, Esq.; Drazin and Warshaw, v. Christine Todd WHITMAN; Peter Verniero; 1 Janice S. Mathis; Stephen R. Rothman; Elton A. Conda; W. Robert Hentges; Harry A. Freitag, Jr.; Maria Vizcarrondo-De Soto; Donald H. Wagner; Donald W. De Leo; Susan Hoffman Greene; Carol Oswald; Kevin J. Hoagland; Marie S. Muhler; * John Pecoraro; Franklin V. Fisher; Rosalie Masseri; Geneva B. Wood; Vernon A. Noble; Nancy Fitzgibbons; Ann P. Conti; Albert J. Ruh; Maria Barnaby Greenwald. Karen Alexander, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; Dennis Drazin, Esq., individually and on behalf of all attorneys similarly situated; and Drazin & Warshaw, a professional corporation, individually and on behalf of all firms similarly situated, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Harold J. Cassidy (Argued), Gregory R. Milne, Cassidy, Foss & San Filippo, Red Bank, NJ, for Appellants.
Peter Verniero, Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Miller (Argued), Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorneys General, Trenton, NJ, for Appellees, Christine Todd Whitman and Peter Verniero.
Ronald Kevitz, Morris County Counsel, W. Randall Bush (Argued), First Assistant Counsel, Morristown, NJ, for Appellee, John Pecoraro.
Robert E. Margulies, Margulies, Wind, Herrington & Knopf, Jersey City, NJ, for Amicus Curiae, Andrea Guillian and Marilyn Gotay.
Richard F. Collier, Jr., Collier, Jacob & Mills, Somerset, NJ, for Amicus Curiae, The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Life.
Paul E. Newell, Newell & Adubato, Freehold, NJ, for Amicus Curiae, Association of Trial Lawyers of America--New Jersey.
Before: GREENBERG, ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges.
Karen Alexander, Dennis Drazin, Esq., and the law firm of Drazin and Warshaw, P.C., appeal from the district court's dismissal of their complaint under Fed R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs had alleged that New Jersey's Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31-1 et seq., and Survival Action Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because they deny a cause of action to the statutory beneficiaries unless a fetus survives past birth. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint.
On July 15, 1992, Karen F. Alexander, who was then eight and one-half months pregnant, was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. The vital signs of Ms. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section, and the fetus appeared normal and healthy. Tragically, however, the child was stillborn. 2
An autopsy was performed, and a death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15, 1992. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was "stillborn" due to "cardio-vascular collapse."
On July 13, 1994, Karen Alexander filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Monmouth County, New Jersey, seeking damages individually 3 and in her capacity as Administratrix Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Kaylyn Elissa Alexander, Deceased, under the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31-1, and as General Administrator of the Estate of Kaylyn Elissa Alexander, Deceased, under the New Jersey Survival Action statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3. The complaint alleged that the negligence of doctors, nurses, and other health care personnel at Jersey Shore Medical Center had injured Ms. Alexander's baby while it was still in her mother's womb. Ms. Alexander requested that the Surrogate of Monmouth County issue Letters of Administration Ad Prosequendum and General Letters of Administration for the Estate of Kaylyn Elissa Alexander. On October 18 and 31, 1994, the Surrogate denied the request for Letters Ad Prosequendum because Kaylyn Elissa had been stillborn.
On October 28, 1994, Karen Alexander and Dennis Drazin, a New Jersey lawyer, and Drazin & Warshaw, P.C., a law firm, filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit named Christine Todd Whitman, individually, and as Governor of the State of New Jersey, Deborah T. Poritz, individually, and as Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, 4 and the Surrogates of all twenty-one counties in New Jersey as defendants. Alexander brought the action individually, on behalf of all mothers whose fetuses had allegedly been injured in utero by the tortious acts of a third party and who were later stillborn, on behalf of her own stillborn child, and on behalf of all stillborn children who were similarly situated. The complaint alleged violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Essentially, the complaint alleged the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act (), and the New Jersey Survival Action Act are unconstitutional because they deny recovery on behalf of stillborn fetuses. Plaintiffs requested, inter alia, that these statutes be declared unconstitutional, an order directing the surrogate to issue letters of administration in the estate of Kaylyn Elissa Alexander to Karen Alexander, and money damages.
Drazin and Drazin & Warshaw, P.C., individually and on behalf of all attorneys and law firms (the "Drazin plaintiffs"), raised the same constitutional challenge to the statutes, and alleged that their constitutional rights are violated because they are precluded from bringing wrongful death and survival actions on behalf of potential clients whose children were stillborn because of the tortious acts of third parties.
On December 11, 1995, the Governor and the Attorney General (the ) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Surrogates (the "County defendants") thereafter moved to join in the state defendants' 12(b)(6) motion. Plaintiffs then cross-moved for class certification and for summary judgment.
Subsequently, fifteen of the Surrogates executed Consent Orders of Judgment. 5 Following argument, the district court granted the State defendants' motion to dismiss. Consequently, plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for summary judgment were denied. This appeal followed. 6
We exercise plenary review over a district court's order dismissing a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 685 (3d Cir.1993). We must determine if plaintiff may be entitled to relief under any reasonable reading of the pleadings, Holder v. City of Allentown, 987 F.2d 188, 193 (3d Cir.1993), assuming the truth of all the factual allegations in the complaint. D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1367 (3d Cir.1992). A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232-33, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). 7
It is helpful to briefly discuss the two causes of action at issue in this dispute before proceeding with our analysis.
The fundamental purpose of a wrongful death action is to compensate survivors for the pecuniary losses they suffer because of the tortious conduct of others. Alfone v. Sarno, 168 N.J.Super. 315, 403 A.2d 9, 12 (App.Div.1979), modified on other grounds, 87 N.J. 99, 432 A.2d 857 (1981). This cause of action was not recognized at common law and is purely a creature of statute. Schmoll v. Creecy, 54 N.J. 194, 254 A.2d 525, 527 (1969). New Jersey's Wrongful Death Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:
When the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default, such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the person injured to maintain an action for damages resulting from the injury, the person who would have been liable in damages for the injury if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death was caused under circumstances amounting in law to a crime.
An award of damages in a wrongful death action "is not a matter of punishment for an errant defendant or of providing for decedent's next of kin to a greater extent than decedent himself would have been able, but is rather a replacement for that which decedent would likely have provided and no more." Hudgins v. Serrano, 186 N.J.Super. 465, 453 A.2d 218, 224 (App.Div.1982). The amount of recovery is based upon the contributions, reduced to monetary terms, which the decedent might reasonably have been expected to make to his or her survivors. Alfone, 403 A.2d at 12. Damages are awarded for pecuniary loss only, and not for injury to feelings, mental suffering, or loss of society or companionship. Id. However, economic dependency is not the sole measure of the damages. Minor children may recover the pecuniary value of the loss of care, guidance and advice of a parent during their minority. Id. In addition, the wrongful death statute permits the award of hospital, medical and funeral expenses. N.J.S.A. 2A:31-5.
A wrongful death action is available when a child is killed by the tortious act of another.
When parents sue for the wrongful death of a child, damages should not be limited to the well-known elements of pecuniary loss such as the loss of the value of the child's anticipated help with household chores, or the loss of anticipated direct financial contributions by the child after he or she becomes a wage earner .... [I]n addition, the jury should be allowed, under appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asah v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., Civil Action No. 16-3935 (FLW) (DEA)
...basis for the classification.’ " Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch , 666 F.3d 862, 876 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Alexander v. Whitman , 114 F.3d 1392, 1407 (3d Cir. 1997) ); see Romer v. Evans , 517 U.S. 620, 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) ("[I]f a law neither burdens a fundam......
-
Johnson v. Paparozzi
...a question arises regarding whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated. Id. at 587-88, 99 S.Ct. 1355; Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1407 (3d Cir.1997). In determining whether such legislation or official action is valid, the general rule is that the legislation or action i......
-
Kuromiya v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-3439 (E.D. Pa. 3/10/1999), CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-3439.
...v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (citations, internal punctuation omitted); see also Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1403 (3d Cir. 1997) (commenting that only most intimate rights are protected). In determining whether or not a right is fundamental, a cou......
-
Coe v. County of Cook
...Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122, 1128 (7th Cir.1993); Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1400 (3d Cir.1997); Crumpton v. Gates, supra, 947 F.2d at 1421; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, supra, 505 U.S. a......
-
LIVING FREELY BEHIND BARS: REFRAMING THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS.
...89 F.3d 1009, 1027 (3d Cir. 1995) (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). (209) Id. (quoting Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1403 (3d Cir. (210) Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997) (quoting Reno v. Flores. 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)). (211) Nicholas, 22......
-
What's Unconstitutional About Wrongful Life Claims? Ask Jane Roe ....
...Jersey Legislature did not intend to provide the parents of unborn or stillborn fetuses with a statutory cause of action for survival." 114 F.3d 1392 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted); see also Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 70 F. Supp.2d 521, 525 (D. N.J. 1999) ("while New Jersey courts have n......