2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-2-2010 

# Rok h varg v . D ept C omm Aff

airs P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2786

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro k h varg v . D ept C omm Affair s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1951. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1951NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2786

___________ YAKOV RO KHVAR G,

A ppel l ant v . TH E D EPA RT M EN T O F CO M M U N I TY A FFA I RS, S T A T E O F N E W JE R S E Y , JO S E P H V . D O R IA , JR . , C o m m issi o n er; T HE T OWNS HI P OF NOR T H B E RG E N, S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y,

N IC O L A S S A C C O , M ay o r

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- 01821) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary20, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed February2, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Y akov R okhvar g appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng theR okhvar g has pr ocee ded w i t h t hi s cas e pr o s e fr om i t s i ncept i on. 1 2 D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on p u r s u a n tt o F e d e r a l Ru l e o f Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e Ru l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. In R ok hv arg’ s com plai nt he al l eged that the D efen dan t s, tw o local pu bli c off i ci al s, cons pi r ed t o i gnor e the det er i or at i on of an a par t m entcompl ex ow ned and managed by R o k h v a rg , th e re b yje o p a rd iz in g th e h e a lth a n d s a f e ty o f th e te n a n ts in th a t c o m p le x . R o k h v a rg re q u e ste d th e f o llo w in g re lief: 1 ) th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts b e o rd e re d to i m m edi at el yr el ocat e the t enant s ; 2) compensa t orydamages i n t he amountof $258, 000 for the “i nt ent i onal phy s i cal des t ruct i on” of the compl ex “a s a r es ul tof the cons pi r acy ”; 3) compensa t or ydamages i n t he amountof $50, 000 foreac h t enant“forpl ay i ng ‘ R us s i an R ou l et t e’ ( A gam e of p robabil i t y ) w i t h the t enan t s l i ves”; and 4) coun sel fees and cost s. 1 D e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to d ism iss R o k h v a rg ’s c o m p lain t, alter n a tiv e lyp u rsu a n t to R u le 12( b) ( 1) and 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng t hateven dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n R okhvar g’ s favor , “the C om pl ai ntr ai s es no fede r al gr ounds upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. ” The D i s t r i ct C our tdecl i ned t o gi ve R okhvar g l eave t o amend hi s compl ai nt , det erm i ni ng thatany amendm entw oul d be fut i l e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatbeca us e i tw as di s m i s s i ng R okhvar g’ s compl ai nt , hi s “O r dert o Show C aus e w i t h E m er gencySafetyR el i ef” w as3

a ls o d e n ie d . R o k h v a rg a p p e a le d . II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. S ee C N A v. U nit ed S t at es, 5 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v iew d e n o v o th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f a R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) m o t i o n . S e e L i g h t f o o tv . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 6 4 F . 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 2 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) . We re v iew f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d e n yR o k h v a rg lea v e to am en d h is co m p lai n t. S ee G ray so n v . M ay v iew S tat e H o sp . , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). II I. W e fi nd no err orbyt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow . T he j ur i s di ct i on of f ederal dis t ri ctcou rt s i s l i m i t ed: i ton l ycan b e exerci sed ov er ci vil act i on s that ar i se underfede r al l aw ( i . e. , fede r al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on) , orthos e thatar i s e betw een c i t i zens o f d if f e re n t sta tes w h e re th e m a tter in c o n tro v e rsy ex c e e d s $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 (i.e., d iv e rsity j ur i s di ct i on) . See 28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 1332( a) . Forpurpos es of fe der al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on, a cl ai m ar i s es underfede r al l aw i f i ti s appar entfr om the fa ce of the compl ai ntt hatt he ca us e of a ct i on w as cr eat ed byfede r al l aw . See J oy ce v. R J R N abi s co H o ld in g s C o rp ., 1 2 6 F .3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). F o r d iv e rs ity ju ri s d ic tio n , a co m p lai n an t m u st plead that h e is a c it izen o f a p arti cu lar st ate a n d that the d ef en d an ts are c i t i z e n s o f

a d i f f e r e n ts t a t e . Se e Gr a n d Uni o n Su p e r ma r k e t s o f th e V. I . , I n c . v . H. E. L o c k h a rt M g m t., 3 1 6 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).4

T he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l yl acke d di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on overthe part i es , al l of w hom ar e ci t i zens of N ew J er s ey . I n addi t i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that R okhvar g’ s compl ai ntdi d notadvanc e a c ogni zabl e cl ai m underfede r al l aw , thus p re c lu d in g th e D istric t C o u rt f ro m e x e rc isin g f

e d e ra l q u e stio n ju risd ictio n . A s a re su lt, it w as pr operfort he D i s t r i ctC ourtt o gr antthe D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. R okhvar g’ s cont ent i on on appea l thatthe D efe ndant s s houl d be pr os ecut ed forvi ol at i ons of 18 U . S. C . § 241 ( cr i m i nal i zi ng cons pi r acyt o i m pede the exe r ci s e of f eder al r i ght s ) i s nota cogni zabl e fe der al cl ai m i n a ci vi l s ui t , cf. U ni t ed St at es v. Phi l adel phi a, 644 F. 2d 187, 199 ( 3d C i r . 1980) , and i tdoes notdemonstr at e thatt he j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct s i n R okhvar g’ s compl ai ntcan be a m e lio ra ted . T h e re f

o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it d e c lin e d to g iv e R o k h v a rg lea v e to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. R o k h v arg ’s m o ti o n s are d e n ie d .