This is the most amazing / surprising case I've seen in years.
The Third Circuit just reversed the dismissal of a case against the state challenging decisions in an ongoing Family Part matter. Granted, the facts appear to be extreme in that the Family Court's actions were outrageous - the litigant was awarded custody but was still required to pay child support for years thereafter, his ex was earning $100,000 and cohabitating whereas he earns $60,000 -- he was required to pay her pendente lite alimony (for over 7 years at this point), etc.... But, even so, under this case, a Federal Court is interceding in an ongoing, pending proceeding in a state court, holding that because review of an interlocutory order doesn't involve review of a state court judgment, Rooker-Feldman abstention doesn't apply -- that Rooker-Feldman applies only to final state court judgments ("We ... hold that Rooker-Feldman does not apply when state proceedings have neither ended nor led to orders reviewable by the United States Supreme Court"). Say what?
Some may recall that I initially filed Pasqua v. Council in the Federal Court (under Anthony v. Council) in 2000. The Federal court extended Younger abstention and declined to exercise Federal jurisdiction, effectively sending the case back to State court in 2003. In its ruling, the Third Circuit specifically noted that Family Part cases are different in that rulings are always subject to modification on a showing of a change in circumstances. That was in 2003. The Third Circuit is now holding (footnote 4 on page 17) that Sprint Commcns, Inc. v. Jacobs (a 2013 SCT decision contracting the reach of Younger) abrogates Anthony v. Council's holding.
The Third Circuit isn't clear about the ultimate relief Malhan may receive in the Federal Court, but it remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
As said, the facts here are really extreme. The Family Part's actions are inexcusable / inexplicable. One example pointed out is that "Malhan has had several motions pending since 2016, discovery is incomplete, no trial is scheduled, and the family court has made clear (so far) that Malhans support obligations will not change until a final divorce decree is entered", but, still, one would think that the remedy here should have been an appeal (even an interlocutory one) through the State Court system, not a separate Federal suit. And, even if they were going to reverse because of outrage over the very unusual and very bad facts here... why make this precedential? I could almost understand it if they slipped it in as unpublished case, but this is huge.
I wonder if the State will take this further, either via reconsideration or seeking cert to the US SCT? If not, some floodgates may have just been opened.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183373p.pdf <x-sigsep>
Please confirm that you received this email and referenced attachments (if any).
- Dave
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
Hopewell, NJ 08525
Voice: 609-466-1222
Fax: 609-466-1223
We take this opportunity to note that Sprint abrogates Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003). That case involved a challenge to New Jersey family court contempt proceedings. See id. at 415
16. Plaintiffs, who had been jailed for civil contempt after failing to pay child support, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against future detention. See id. To decide whether declaratory and injunctive relief was appropriate, we applied only the Middlesex factors. See id. at 418 23. And we reasoned that [i]n New Jersey, child support orders and the mechanisms for monitoring, enforcing and modifying them comprise a unique system in continual operation. Id. at 420. We viewed the system as a whole, rather than as individual, discrete hearings. Id. at 420 21. Sprints exceptional categories do not include system[s] in continual operation. True, the federal courts disposition of [] a case may well affect, or for practical purposes pre-empt, a futureor even a pending state-court action. , 491 U.S. at 373. But [a]bstention is not
in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. Sprint , 571 U.S. at 72.
</x-sigsep>