Ehrlich v. Alvarez
| Decision Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 20-6398 (RBK/KMW) |
| Parties | JONATHAN S. EHRLICH, Plaintiff, v. ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 7), and Plaintiff's Motion for an Entry of Judgment Against Defendants (Doc. No. 14). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.
Plaintiff Jonathan Ehrlich, the sole beneficiary of his uncle's multi-million-dollar estate, filed suit against various state court judges and administrators, the New Jersey Attorney General, the Governor of New Jersey, and the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court alleging a statewide conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Although framed as an attempt to seek redress for the deprivation of his constitutional rights, the injuries complained of and relief sought in the Complaint demonstrate that Plaintiff merely disagrees with the state court decisions.
Plaintiff Jonathan Ehrlich ("Mr. Ehrlich") brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eleven New Jersey state court judges, two county surrogates, two deputy surrogates, Governor Murphy, Attorney General Grewal, the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, the Director of the Office of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, and two county surrogate courts alleging they conspired to deprive him of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair and impartial hearing and to discovery or cross-examination. (Doc. No. 8, Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 74, 113-114).1 The crux of Mr. Ehrlich's claim is that the Defendants conspired to protect one of their own—Judge McInerney, who allegedly committed fraud while acting as administrator of Plaintiff's uncle's estate—by denying any wrongdoing on his part and rejecting his legal malpractice claim. (Id. at ¶¶ 28, 31, 38, 94-95). The byproduct of this alleged conspiracy was a deprivation of Mr. Ehrlich's constitutional rights. (See id. at ¶¶ 38, 61). Among other remedies, Mr. Ehrlich seeks injunctive relief from this Court and requests that we order the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court to publish a public apology stating that the previous rulings bear no resemblance to any verified facts of the case nor the truth.
The alleged conspiracy began in November of 2009, when after the passing of Richard Ehrlich—a long-time estate attorney in New Jersey and Mr. Ehrlich's uncle—then AssignmentJudge of the Burlington Vicinage, Judge Bookbinder, appointed Judge Dennis P. McInerney as temporary trustee of decedent's law practice. (Id. at ¶ 57). Upon learning of his uncle's death, Mr. Ehrlich searched his uncle's house for the will and found an unsigned, copy typed on his uncle's legal stationary. (Id. at ¶ 58). Due to its unsigned nature, a will contest ensued between Mr. Ehrlich and his two siblings. (Id. at ¶ 60). In December of 2009, Judge McInerney was appointed as temporary administrator of the contested estate by probate Judge Hogan and served in this role until July of 2013. (Id. at ¶¶ 61, 70). This appointment allegedly created a conflict of interest because Judge Hogan and McInerney were friends for almost 30 years.
On April 20, 2011, Judge Hogan ordered the will copy admitted and ordered that Judge McInerney remain as administrator. (Id. at ¶ 78). The entire estate, less a token amount to Plaintiff's two siblings, was bequeathed to Plaintiff. (Id.). On June 1, 2011, Hogan denied a motion for reconsideration on admission of the will to probate, and the appellate division affirmed. (Id. at ¶ 80). This issue was appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court but was eventually settled in April of 2013. (Id. at ¶ 86).
While this appeal was pending, Judge Hogan was replaced by Judge Suter. (Id. at ¶ 81). In early 2012, Judge Suter heard Plaintiff's motion to remove Judge McInerney as temporary administrator. (Id. at ¶ 82). Plaintiff sought removal of Judge McInerney because of his alleged perjury but this allegation was considered and ultimately rejected. (Id. at ¶ 83). Judge Suter also refused to find any basis to vacate Judge Hogan's 2011 order admitting an allegedly fraudulent accounting. (Id.).
Around the same time of Plaintiff's motion to remove Judge McInerney, Judge Suter granted Judge McInerney's motion to sell the decedent's riverfront property to a friend of Judge McInernery for less than the fair market value of the land. (Id. at ¶ 84). She also granted JudgeMcInerney's motion to pay a Burlington County politician a substantial settlement from the estate. (Id.).
On July 5, 2013, Judge Bookbinder transferred the case to Mercer County with Judge Jacobson presiding over the case. (Id. at ¶ 87). In a 64-page opinion, Judge Jacobson rejected Mr. Ehrlich's challenge to Judge McInerney's second accounting, refused hisrequest to question Judge McInerney, and denied his request to serve as temporary administrator of his uncle's estate. (Id. at ¶ 90). Judge Jacobson also allegedly ordered Mr. Ehrlich to sign a release fully indemnifying Judge McInerney prior to transferring any remaining estate funds. (Id. at ¶ 92). Mr. Ehrlich refused to sign this release. (Id. at ¶ 93).
An ancillary legal malpractice case was transferred from Mercer to Camden County in 2015. (Id. at ¶ 94). Judge Kassel dismissed the case on December 14, 2016, finding there was nothing in the facts to overcome the rebuttable presumption that his uncle deliberately destroyed the will. (Id. at ¶ 95). This decision and others were affirmed on appeal. (Id. at ¶ 99). However, Mr. Ehlrich was hindered in his timely appeal of these decisions to the New Jersey Supreme Court because Judge Alvarez, who presided over these appeals at the intermediate appellate court, delayed mailing decisions. (Id. at ¶¶ 100-104).
The Surrogate Courts of Mercer and Burlington County were also wrapped up in this conspiracy as they glossed over and rubber-stamped various erroneous accountings presented by Judge McInerney. (Id. at ¶ 105). They also would "not return phone calls or acknowledge filings by [Mr. Ehlrich's] attorney while immediately accommodating [Judge] McInerney's every whim." (Id. at ¶ 106).
There was also repeated efforts to stonewall Mr. Ehlrich from contesting Judge McInernery's administration of the estate and almost every state court decision was made absent a plenary hearing. (Id. at ¶¶ 113-114).
On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants asserting violations of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). After Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 7, 8). On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking an entry of default and requesting that Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied as moot. (Doc. No. 14).
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction is the Court's authority to hear a case. If a case, as presented by the plaintiff, does not meet the requirements of subject matter jurisdiction or if it is otherwise barred by law, then the Court must dismiss the plaintiff's action.
The plaintiff generally has the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2009). The defendant can challenge whether the plaintiff has done so, through either a facial challenge or a factual challenge to the complaint. In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 632 (3d Cir. 2017).
In a facial challenge, the court looks to the face of the complaint and accepts as true the facts alleged by the plaintiff. Hartig Drug Co. v. Senju Pharm. Co., 836 F.3d 261, 268 (3d Cir.2016). If the court cannot conclude, based on face of the complaint, that jurisdictional requirements are met, then the court must dismiss the complaint. In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d at 633 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In other words, a facial challenge "calls for a district court to apply the same standard of review it would use in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Constitution Party v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014). Thus, "'[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of [jurisdiction], supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.'" In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d at 633 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). In a factual challenge, however, the plaintiff's factual allegations are not presumed to be true, and the court "is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case." Hartig Drug Co., 836 F.3d at 268. A factual challenge may only be raised after an answer has been filed. Long v. SEPTA, 903 F.3d 312, 320 (3d Cir. 2018). Thus, any motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed prior to an answer is, by default, a facial challenge. Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, "courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). In other words, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial