2009 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 9-9-2009 

# Lou H ogg 's v

. N ew J e rsey 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 . 09-1166

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " L ou H o gg ' s v

. N ew J e r s ey " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 688. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6881 NOT 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- 1166

___________ L O U M A R R A H O G G ’S , A ppel l ant

v. S T AT E OF NE W J E RS E Y, D epart m entof Labor& D i vi s i on W or ker ' s C om pens at i on

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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 07- C V - 02972) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

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

Sept ember8, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: Sept ember9, 2009)

__________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.A ppel l ant ’ s name i s s pel l ed w i th an apos tr ophe. 1 2

L ou M arr a H ogg’ s appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct 1 C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eythatdi s m i s s ed hercompl ai ntagai ns tthe St at e of N e w Je rse y , D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r a n d D iv isio n o f

W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n . W e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. I.

H o g g ’ s w a s i n

j u r e d o n th e j o b , a n d f

i l e d a c o m p l a i n tw i th th e N e w J e r s e y, D e p a rt m e n t o f

L a b o r a n d W o rk f

o rc e D e v e lo p m e n t, D iv is io n o f W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n . S he w as even tuall yaw arded 2 0% dis abil i tyfor her i njur i es bythe W orkers ’ C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t . H e re m p l o ye ra p p e a l e d t o th e S u p e r i o rC o u r to f N e w J e r s e y, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, w hi ch af fi r m ed the W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C our t . H ogg’ s di d not cr os s - appea l ; i ns t ead, w hi l e herempl oy er ’ s appea l w as pendi ng, H ogg’ s fi l ed a c om pl ai nt i n th e S u p e r i o rC o u r to f N e w J e r s e y, L a w D i v i s i o n a g a i n s tth e S t a t e o f N e w J e r s e y, D e p a rt m e n t o f

L a b o r a n d W o rk f

o rc e D e v e lo p m e n t, D iv is io n o f W o rk e rs ’ C o m p e n s a tio n . I n the compl ai nt , s he al l eged thatherdue pr oces s r i ght s underthe U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on had bee n vi ol at ed dur i ng the cour s e of he rw or ker s ’ compensa t i on pr ocee di ngs . H ogg’ s compl ai ned thathear i ngs w er e hel d i n herabs ence and s he compl ai ned aboutthe ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the i ndepende ntm edi cal exam. A ft er hear i ng ar gum ent s , the C our tdi s m i s s ed H ogg’ s compl ai nt . T he C our thel d thatthe Law D i vi s i on l acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derH ogg’ s cl ai m s , as the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on hadL i ke the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e ar e nots ur e w hetherH ogg’ s w as s ui ng the D i vi s i on of 2 W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on as a s i ngl e ent i ty , orw hethers he w as att empt i ng t o s ue that d ivisi o n , as w ell as th e N ew Jerse yD ep artm en t of L ab o r an d the S tat e o f N ew Jerse y . In anyevent , as expl ai ned bel ow , w e agr ee thatanyand al l of thes e ent i t i es ar e i m m une f ro m su it p u rsu a n t to th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. T he doctr i ne t akes i t s name fr om tw o U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tcas es : R ookerv. 3 Fi de l i tyTrus tCo. , 26 3 U. S. 41 3 ( 19 23 ) a nd D . C. Cour tof A pp e a l s v. Fe l dman , 46 0 U. S. 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ). 3 excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on and H ogg’ s coul d have r ai s ed the cl ai m s on appea l . H ogg’ s di d not appea l the dec i s i on.

I n t he meant i m e, H ogg’ s fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , agai n nami ng the St at e of N ew J er s ey , D epart m ent o f L a b o r a n d W o rk f

o rc e D e v e lo p m e n t, D iv isio n o f W o rk e rs’ C o m p e n sa tio n a s d e f e n d a n t, and r ai s i ng the s ame cl ai m s thatw er e al l eged i n hers ui ti n the Law D i vi s i on, butaddi ng th a t ju risd ictio n w a s p ro p e r in th e f e d e ra l co u rt “ b e c a u se o f F e d e ra l C iv il R ig h ts vi ol at i ons cons i s t i ng of H I A [s i c] , Soci al Secur i tyand A m er i can w i th D i s abi l i t i es i s s ues . ” A s reli ef , H o g g ’s so u g h t fi v e m il li o n d o ll ars. T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n stru ed H o g g ’s compl ai ntas r ai s i ng a cl ai m pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 forvi ol at i on of the D ue P r o c e s s c l a u s e o f

th e F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n t . Th e Di s tr i c tCo u r th e l d th a tHo g g ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e d e f

e n d a n t( o rd e f

e n d a n t s ) w e r e b a rr e d b y E l e v e n th A m e n d m e n ti m m u n i ty,

2 a n d b e c a u s e th e S ta te o f N e w J e rs e yis n o t a “ p e rs o n ” s u b je c t to lia b ility u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . T he C our tal s o found thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derH ogg’ s cl ai m s pur s uantt o t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. T he C our tfound i tunnece s s aryt o r eac h the i s s ue of w hether 34

H o g g ’s c laim s w e re b a rre d b yre s ju d ica ta. T h e C o u rt g ra n ted th e d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t, a n d H o g g ’s f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to th e E lev e n th A m endmentw as pr oper . T he guar ant ee of the El eventh A m endmenti s that no nco nsenti ng st at es m ayno tbe sued bypri vate i nd i vidual s i n fed eral cou rtun l ess C ongr es s abr ogat es the s t at e’ s i m m uni typur s uantt o a val i d exer ci s e of i t s pow er . See B d . o f T ru s t e e s o f

th e U n i v . o f

A l a b a m a v . G a rr e t t , 5 3 1 U . S . 3 5 6 , 3 6 3 - 6 4 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . We a g r e e w i th th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g th a ta n y j u d g m e n ta g a i n s tth e S t a t e o f N e w J e r s e y, the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof Laborand W or kfor ce D evel opm ent , orthe D i vi s i on of W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on w oul d be pai d byN ew J er s ey ’ s s t at e tr eas ury . D i s t . C t . O p. at 13- 15. B eca us e the St at e of N ew J er s eyw as thus the r eal partyati nt er es t , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yh e ld th a t th e s e e n titie s a re im m u n e f ro m a s u it s e e k in g m o n e yd a m a g e s . F i t c h i k v . N. J . T r a n s i tRa i l Op e r a t i o n s , I n c . , 8 7 3 F . 2 d 6 5 5 , 6 5 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) . As H ogg’ s m ade ne i thera demand fori nj unct i ve r el i ef, noranyal l egat i on of a c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ther e i s no bas i s forexce pt i ng the appl i cat i on of E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni tyi n thi s cas e. See Edel m an v. J or dan, 415 U . S. 651, 676- 78 ( 1974) ; s ee a l s o E x part e Y oung, 209 U S. 123 ( 1908) ( al l ow i ng j ur i s di ct i on for s ui t s s eeki ng pr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef ort o pr ot ectagai ns tcont i nui ng vi ol at i ons of f e d e ra l r ig h ts ).5 M o re o v e r, th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e re p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d f ro m H o g g ’s’ su it becau se N ew Jer sey , i t s D epart m ent of L abo r and t hat D epart m ent’ s D i vis i on of W orkers ’ C om pens at i on ar e notr ecogni zed a s “per s ons ” under§ 1983. See 42 U . S. C . § 1983 ( “Ever yper s on w ho . . . caus es t o be s ubj ect ed, anyci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es . . . t o t he dep ri vati on of an yri gh t s, pri vil eges or i m m un i t i es secured bythe C on st i tuti on and l aw s, sh all b e li ab le t o the p artyinjured . . . . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); see also W il l v. M ich. D ep ’t o f S tate P o lice , 4 9 1 U .S . 5 8 , 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t sta tes a n d sta te o f f icia ls, a c tin g in thei roffi ci al capa ci ty , ar e not“per s ons ” under§ 1983) ; U ni t ed St at es ex r el . For eman v. S tate o f N .J., 4 4 9 F .2 d 1 2 9 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t S tate o f N e w Je rse yis n o t a “p erso n ” u n d er § 1 9 8 3 an d thu s n o t am en d ab le t o su itu n d er tha t st atute).

A s not ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntpur s uantt o the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. T he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne di ves t s fede r al court s of j ur i s di ct i on w her e a f

eder al act i on “w oul d be the equi val entof an a ppel l at e r evi ew ” of a s t at e courtj udgm ent . FO C U S v. A l l eghenyC ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas , 75 F. 3d 8 3 4 , 8 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e d o ctri n e a p p li es o n lyw h ere “the losing p artyin state co u rt fil ed su itin f

ed era l cou rtaf

ter th e state p roc ee d ing s en d ed , co m p lai n ing o f a n injury c a u s e d b yth e s ta te -c o u rt ju d g m e n t a n d s e e k in g re v ie w a n d re je c tio n o f

th a t ju d g m e n t.” E x x o n M o b il C o rp. v. S au d i B asic In d u s. C o rp., 5 4 4 U . S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 1 (20 0 5 ). H o g g ’s s t at es i n herbr i ef that“[t ] he s t at e courtrul i ngs ar e err oneous and s houl d be voi ded. ” A p p ell an t’ s Inf

o rm al B ri ef

at 5. T h at i s p rec isel ythe re li ef that fe d era l cou rt s are6

pr ecl uded fr om gr ant i ng pur s uantt o R ooker - Fel dm an.

I tappea r s thatH ogg’ s m ayal s o be s eeki ng r el i ef otherthan the overtur ni ng of the s t at e courtw or ker s ’ compensa t i on rul i ng. B utt o the ext entthatr evi ew of anyof hercl ai m s i s notbarr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, r evi ew i s barr ed bycol l at er al es t oppel and r es j udi cat a, beca us e s he i s att empt i ng t o r ai s e i s s ues thatw er e ei ther pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned bythe N ew J er s eycourt s , ors houl d have be en r ai s ed i n the N ew J e rs e yp ro c e e d in g s .

U n d e r N e w Je rse ylaw , the d o c trin e o f c o llate ra l es to p p e l o p e ra tes to for ecl os e r el i t i gat i on of an i s s ue w hen the partyas s ert i ng the bars how s that : ( 1) the i s s ue t o be pr ecl uded i s i dent i cal t o t he i s s ue dec i ded i n the pr i orpr ocee di ng, ( 2) the i s s ue w as actual l yl i t i gat ed i n the pr i orpr ocee di ng, ( 3) the courti n the pr i orpr ocee di ng i s s ued a fi nal j udgm enton t he mer i t s , ( 4) the det erm i nat i on of the i s s ue w as es s ent i al t o the pr i or ju d g m e n t, an d (5 ) th e p a rtya g a in st w h o m th e d o c trin e is a ss e rte d w a s a p a rtyto o r in pr i vi tyw i th a partyt o t he ea r l i erpr ocee di ng. H ennes s eyv. W i ns l ow T ow ns hi p, 875 A . 2d 240, 244 ( N . J . 2005) . T hos e cl ai m s actual l ydeci ded i n H ogg’ s w or ker s ’ compensa t i on p ro c e e d in g s th u s m a yn o t b e re litig a te d in f e d e ra l c o u rt . F u rth e r, re s ju d ica ta b a rs litig a tio n o f c laim s th a t sh o u ld h a v e b e e n ra ise d in p re v io u s p ro c e e d in g s. T h e d o c trin e h a s th e f o llo w in g e lem e n ts: “ (1 ) th e f in a l ju d g m e n t in the pr i oract i on m us tbe val i d, fi nal , and on the mer i t s ; ( 2) the part i es i n the l at eract i onH ogg’ s ’ m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed. 4 7 m us tbe i dent i cal t o ori n pr i vi tyw i th thos e i n the pr i oract i on; and ( 3) the cl ai m i n the l at eract i on m us tgr ow outof the s ame t r ans act i on oroccurr ence as the cl ai m i n the ea r l i er one. ” M cN ei l v. L egi s l at i ve A ppor t i onm entC om m ’ n of the St at e of N . J . , 828 A . 2d 840, 8 5 9 (N .J. 2 0 0 3 ). H o g g ’s r a ise d v irtu a llyid e n tica l cla im s a g a in st th e sa m e d e f e n d a n t in heract i on i n the Law D i vi s i on; thatC our thel d thatthe cl ai m s s houl d have be en r ai s ed on a p p e a l t o th e Ap p e l l a t e Di v i s i o n i n Ho g g ’ s wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n a c t i o n . As th e c l a i ms coul d have be en r ai s ed i n herw or ker s ’ compensa t i on pr ocee di ng, r es j udi cat a pr ecl udes fede r al courtr evi ew of anyof thes e cl ai m s pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e.

W e furtheragr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatH ogg’ s ’ s t at ementthats ubj ect m a tter ju risd ictio n w a s p ro p e r in th e f e d e ra l co u rt “ b e c a u se o f F e d e ra l C iv il R ig h ts viol at i on s consi st i ng of H IA [si c], S ocial S ecuri tyand A m eri can w i th D i sabi l i t i es i ssues” is n o t su f f icie n t to a lleg e a c o g n iza b le c laim u n d e r a n yf e d e ra l law . S e e A sh c ro f t v . Iq b a l, 129 S. C t . 1937 ( 2009) ( t o s ur vi ve mot i on t o di s m i s s , compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci ent f a c tu a l m a tte r, a c c e p te d a s tru e , to s ta te c la im to re lie f th a t is p la u s ib le o n its f a c e ). H ogg’ s compl ai ntdoes notexpl ai n w hi ch s t atut es s he bel i eves w er e vi ol at ed, norw hys he i s due rel i ef un der anyof those st atutes .

F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 4