Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03467/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03467-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Appellee
Michael Pisani
Appellee
James Rapisardi
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3467

___________

JAMES RAPISARDI, Executor of 

the Estate of Rosario Rapisardi

Appellant,

v. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

MICHAEL PISANI, 

Department Supervisor (in his official capacity)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00654)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 7, 2008

Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed April 14, 2008)

_________

 OPINION

_________

Case: 07-3467 Document: 00311044605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2008
 1

 We need not repeat the details of the underlying dispute as they are well-known to

the parties and are summarized in the District Court’s memorandum. 

2

PER CURIAM

This case arose after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

instigated administrative proceedings against Rosario and James Rapisardi for violations

of the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 to -40.1

 In

response, Plaintiff, James Rapisardi, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Rosario

Rapisardi, filed a complaint in the District Court against the State of New Jersey seeking

the dismissal of all State court actions and judgments against him and the estate. On

August 7, 2007, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that,

“[u]nder the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court is prohibited from taking jurisdiction

over a claim appealing a state court decision.” Rapisardi now appeals from the District

Court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking “federal review of the facts of this case.” (See

Compl. at 1.)

 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise

plenary review of the District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See

Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006). We

also exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1). See In re Cybergenics Corp., 226 F.3d 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2000). 

 In some circumstances, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district

Case: 07-3467 Document: 00311044605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2008
3

court of jurisdiction to review a state court adjudication. Turner, 449 F.3d at 547. The

Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Here, Rapisardi

seeks to dismiss all judgments against him issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Appellate Division, and to vacate all fines, penalties, sanctions and restoration orders

imposed. He also seeks to expunge both his own credit record and that of the estate of

Rosario Rapisardi. Rapisardi disputes the District Court’s conclusion that his claims are

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

 The allegations concerning the fines, penalties, sanctions and restoration orders

issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, as well as the resulting

damage to the Rapisardis’ credit reports, clearly constitute complaints about putative

injuries caused by a state court judgment. Thus, the District Court properly concluded

that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims. See Holt v. Lake County Bd. of Comm’rs,

408 F.3d 335, 336 (7th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s action barred by Rooker-Feldman because

“[plaintiff’s] injury was caused by the state court judgments . . . [and] absent the state

court’s judgment . . . [plaintiff] would not have the injury he now seeks to redress”) (per

curiam) (cited in Turner, 449 F.3d at 547). 

Rapisardi argues that New Jersey did not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to

prosecute the charges against him, pursuant to Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715

Case: 07-3467 Document: 00311044605 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2008
 2

Plaintiff refers to the case in his papers as Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;

however, the matter appeared before the Supreme Court as a consolidated case and is

captioned as Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

4

(2006) and, therefore, that federal subject matter jurisdiction is proper.2 Rapanos is

inapposite. In Rapanos, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify what qualifies as a

regulable water under the federal Clean Water Act for purposes of the exercise of federal

jurisdiction over certain waterways. The opinion does not, however, provide any basis

for subject matter jurisdiction over Rapisardi’s claims, which seek to overturn various

state court judgments against James and Rosario Rapisardi for the violation of state

environmental laws. 

Moreover, to the extent that review of any of Ripardi’s claims is not barred by the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, they are barred by res judicata because he is attempting to

relitigate issues previously determined by the New Jersey Superior Court. Under New

Jersey law, res judicata requires the following elements: (1) the final judgment in the

prior action must be valid, final, and on the merits; (2) the parties in the later action must

be identical to or in privity with those in the prior action; and (3) the claim in the later

action must grow out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim in the earlier one. 

See McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Comm’n of the State of N.J., 828 A.2d 840,

859

(N.J. 2003). There is no question that all three elements are present here; therefore, res

Case: 07-3467 Document: 00311044605 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2008
 3

In his reply brief, Rapisardi argues that federal jurisdiction is proper based on alleged

constitutional violations resulting from the state court judgments against him. However,

we need not address these allegations for the first time on appeal, as Rapisardi did not

raise these claims in his complaint before the District Court. See Ross v. Hotel

Employees and Rest. Employees Int’l Union, 266 F.3d 236, 242 (3d Cir. 2001). 

5

judicata precludes federal court review of any of the claims presented in this case.3

Case: 07-3467 Document: 00311044605 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2008