Weber v. McGrogan
| Decision Date | 12 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-4379,16-4379 |
| Parties | Amy WEBER, Individually, and as Parent, Natural Guardian and Next Friend on behalf of K.A., a Minor v. Frances A. MCGROGAN, Individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Peter J. Melchionne, individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Kenneth J. Slomienski, individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Gary N. Wilcox, individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Bonnie J. Mizdol, Individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Peter Doyne, individually and as a State actor Judge for the Bergen County Family Court; Marcelle Nicole, individually and as a State actor Law Clerk for the Bergen County Family Court; Govenor Chris Christie, individually and as State actor Governor; Sentator Robert Menendez, individually and as State actor Senator; Senator Nicholas Sacco, individually and as State actor Senator; State of New Jersey; Bergen County Family Court of the Superior Court of New Jersey; Anthony D'Urso; Joan Glaeser; Brett Biller; Richard Coco; Kyongok Kim; Julia Debellis; Nina Agrawal ; Jemour Maddux; Sara Michaelowlski; Patricia Sermabikian; Families First; Victoria Madden; Childrens Aids and Family Services; Rachel Polan; Patricia Kryger; Maria Mahtani; Claire Abel; Division of Child Protection and Permanency f/k/a DYFS; Attorney General New Jersey; State of New Jersey Board of Ethics; Monique D'Errico, Esq.; Mary Zec, Esq.; Caryn Stalter, Esq.; Yllini Torres; Dolores Counneely; Ruth Bazzano; Lourdes Nunez ; Danille Gonzalez; Luis Padierna; Cynthia McWhite; Victoria Summers; Joan Takacs; Martha Vazquez; Maria Gonzalez; Nicolle Miller; Haydee Zamora-Dalton; Kelly Nestor; Luke Drummond; Marisol Naranjo; Jessica Mulligan ; Bergen County Division of Family Guidance; Judith Legget; Ressa Villani; Dennis Cheteyan ; Dr. Daniel Bromberg; Dr. Donna Lobiondo; Samsiri Sostre; Vivian Chern Shnadiman; Robert Latimer; Dr. Harold Goldstein; Jacqueline Kim Szabo; Michael Lamolino, Esq.; Robyn Veasey; All About Me Learning Center; Michael Culver; Connie Culver ; Does #1 thru 33; Audrey Hepburn Children's House ; Keysha Tyson; Keith J. Yonos, Real Party of Interest Amy Weber, Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Christopher T. Zirpoli, Esq. [ARGUED], Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of Appellant
Gurbir S. Grewal, Thomas P. Lihan, Esq., Michael R. Sarno, Esq. [ARGUED], Office of the Attorney General, Division of Law, 25 Market Street, Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, Attorneys for Appellees Frances A. McGrogan, individually and as a STATE Judge for the Bergen County Family Court
Daniel R. Esposito, Esq., Buckly Theroux Kline, 707 State Road Princeton, NJ 08540, Attorney for Appellees Audrey Hepburn Children’s House, Brett Biller, Richard Coco, Anthony D’Urso, Joan Glaeser, Kyongok Kim, Jemour Maddux, Sara Michaelowlski, Patricia Sermabikian
Robert E. Levy, Esq., Scarinci & Hollenbeck, 1100 Valley Brook Avenue, P.O. Box 790, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071, Attorney for Appellee Senator Robert Menendez, individually and as State actor Senator
Cyndee L. Allert, Esq., Elizabeth A. Farrell, Esq., Dughi Hewit & Domalewski, 340 North Avenue East, Suite 2, Cranford, NJ 07016, Attorneys for Appellees Julia DeBellis, Nina Agrawal, Robert Latimer
Paul J. Soderman, Esq., Suite 202, 157 Eagle Rock Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, Attorney for Appellee Families First, Victoria Madden
Darrell M. Felsenstein, Esq., Wells Jaworski & Lebman, 12 Route 17 North, P.O. Box 1827, Paramus, NJ 07653, Attorney for Appellees Childrens Aids and Family Services, Rachel Polan, Patricia Kryger, Maria Mahtani, Claire Abel
Julien X. Neals, Esq., Robert N. Schwartz, Esq., Office of Bergen County Counsel, One Bergen County Plaza, Room 580, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Attorneys for Bergen County Division of Family Guidance, Judith Legget
William T. McGloin, Esq., Connell Foley, 56 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, Attorney for Dr. Daniel Bromberg, Dr. Donna LoBiondo
William J. Buckley, Esq., Thomas N. Gamarello, Esq., Schenck Price Smith & King, 220 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 991, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Attorneys for Vivian Chern Shnadiman
Melissa J. Brown, Esq., Marks O’Neill O’Brien Doherty & Kelly, 535 Route 38 East, Suite 501, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, Attorney for Jacqueline Kim Szabo
Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.
Sometimes a difficult journey produces fresh insights, like when the "[l]ongest way round is the shortest way home."1 In this appeal, Amy Weber argues persuasively that her complaint was erroneously dismissed. But rather than decide that question, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. That result is regrettable, but not unexpected, as finality is a necessary predicate to appellate review. Indeed, an epic poem of problems often follows when charting any other course. Our opinion seeks to eliminate some of that confusion while reminding litigants and courts that following the rules ensures predictable outcomes and effective results.
We begin our journey in 2014 when Appellant Amy Weber sued, pro se , nearly sixty defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.2 Weber’s complaint stems largely from her experiences dealing with New Jersey public officials during a child custody matter, a controversy that involved litigation in the New Jersey state courts. When she filed her federal complaint, Weber was also appealing an adverse custody decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The specter of this seemingly related state court action caused the District Court to consider the prudential limitations on subject-matter jurisdiction in the abstention doctrines. Following briefing, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that Weber’s claims be dismissed under the principles of Rooker-Feldman or Younger .3 And that is where the story begins its journey into mystery.
The District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion adopting the Report and Recommendation, accompanied by an order dismissing Weber’s complaint without prejudice and permitting her thirty days to amend. In a letter dated June 27, 2016, Weber filed a notice of appeal with this Court. That notice prompted a July 21, 2016 letter by our Circuit Clerk advising Weber that her appeal "will be submitted to a panel of this Court for possible dismissal due to a jurisdictional defect" because her complaint had been dismissed by the District Court without prejudice and thus "may not be reviewable at this time by a court of appeals." The Clerk’s letter enclosed a copy of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and summarized the holding in Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam), stating that, "to be final, order of dismissal must be with prejudice; order dismissing without prejudice contemplates leave to amend and is not appealable unless plaintiff elects to stand on complaint ...." Multiple defendants echoed the same jurisdictional concern in contemporaneous letters to this Court.
In response, Weber wrote to the District Court advising that she had "taken [her] case into appeal" and "kindly requesting for your final court order regarding my case ... to allow me to proceed accordingly." Receiving no response, Weber wrote to this Court and asked to withdraw her appeal. The Clerk of the Court advised Weber in a new letter that if she wished to withdraw her appeal, she must file a motion or the case would move forward.
And so Weber moved to dismiss her appeal to prevent, she wrote, "more ‘jurisdictional defects.’ " This Court granted her motion.
With Weber’s appeal dismissed, some defendants began to wonder where the case now stood. So, on November 29, 2016, counsel for a few wrote the District Court that Weber’s thirty-day period to amend her complaint following the June 9 dismissal without prejudice "has long passed" and that defendants "seek dismissal with prejudice."4 The next day, the District Court made an electronic entry on the docket that stated: 5 Believing herself free from the jurisdictional defects of her earlier appeal, Weber filed a new notice of appeal on December 15, 2016. That appeal is before us today and turns on a surprisingly elusive question: is there a final order of the District Court dismissing Weber’s complaint?
As with every case, we begin by assessing our jurisdiction. Congress has given the federal circuit courts jurisdiction over "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A "final decision" is "one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States , 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). The requirement of finality is often described as serving "the important purpose of promoting efficient judicial administration." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U.S. 368, 374, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981). A final decision or judgment is "[a] court’s last action that settles the rights of the parties and disposes of all issues in controversy, except for ... enforcement of the judgment." Final Judgment , BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). That may well mean a party must delay appellate review; indeed, "the possibility that a ruling may be erroneous and may impose additional litigation expense is not sufficient to set aside the finality requirement imposed by Congre...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. Am. Butterfly Ass'n v. Wolf
...a "clear and unequivocal intent to decline amendment and immediately appeal that leaves no doubt or ambiguity." Weber v. McGrogan , 939 F.3d 232, 237–240 (3d Cir. 2019).Still other courts require nothing more than the passage of the time period set out by the district court.4 The Seventh Ci......
-
Aldossari v. Ripp
... ... elected to stand on his complaint rather than seek to amend ... it. See Weber v. McGrogan , 939 F.3d 232, 238 (3d ... Cir. 2019) ("[W]hen a plaintiff prefers not to amend, he ... 'may file an appropriate notice with ... ...
-
Aldossari ex rel. Aldossari v. Ripp
...final and therefore appealable, once Aldossari had elected to stand on his complaint rather than seek to amend it. See Weber v. McGrogan , 939 F.3d 232, 238 (3d Cir. 2019) ("[W]hen a plaintiff prefers not to amend, he ‘may file an appropriate notice with the district court asserting his int......
-
Britt v. DeJoy
...granting leave to amend will automatically become final at the expiration of the stated time period. But see Weber v. McGrogan , 939 F.3d 232, 237–40 (3d Cir. 2019) (finding that a decision is final if the district court issued a "self-effectuating" order allowing a plaintiff to amend by a ......