2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-12-2013

Edward Chrystal v. New Jersey Department of Law

and Public Safety

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2368

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Edward Chrystal v. New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 698.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/698
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 12-2368

______

EDWARD CHRYSTAL

Appellant

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, 

DIVISION OF STATE POLICE

______

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3-11-cv-02455)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

______

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 11, 2013

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 12, 2013)

______

OPINION OF THE COURT

______

 

VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.

Edward Chrystal (―Appellant‖) appeals from an order of the District Court for the 

District of New Jersey entering summary judgment in favor of the New Jersey 

Department of Law and Public Safety (―Appellee‖). Appellant brought suit in federal 
2

court, claiming that he was improperly denied promotions in the New Jersey State Police. 

He had previously raised similar claims in New Jersey state court. For the reasons that 

follow, we agree that this appeal is barred by Appellant‘s prior action in state court and, 

in particular, by New Jersey‘s entire controversy doctrine. We will therefore affirm the 

District Court.

I. Background

Appellant has been employed by the New Jersey State Police (―NJSP‖) for more 

than two decades. He also serves as a Lieutenant Colonel in the New Jersey National 

Guard. After the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Appellant was ordered to active duty by the

United States Army between September 28, 2005 and November 11, 2005 and was 

deployed in New Orleans, Louisiana. Appellant alleges that before his 2005 deployment, 

he was told by his NJSP supervisor that he would be promoted from Sergeant to Sergeant 

First Class (―SFC‖). But upon his return from his 2005 deployment, the NJSP had 

promoted two other Sergeants to SFC, both of whom Appellant claims were less 

qualified. In August 2006, Appellant requested a thirty day military leave from the 

NJSP, which purportedly caused another less-qualified Sergeant to be promoted to SFC. 

These events formed the basis of a Complaint which Appellant filed in New Jersey State 

Superior Court (―the State Action‖) in January 2007. The Complaint alleged violations 

of the Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et 

seq. (―USERRA‖), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a) 

(―NJLAD‖).
3

While the State Action was pending, Appellant was again called for active duty, 

this time in Iraq, from September 2008 to June 2009. Appellant claims more promotions 

were made during that time, this time of SFCs to Lieutenants. When Appellant learned 

of these new promotions in August 2009, his counsel brought it to the attention of the 

court in the State Action. In response, on September 15, 2009, Appellee, the defendant in 

the State Action, filed a motion in limine to prohibit introduction of any evidence of the 

SFC-to-lieutenant promotions at trial. 

Appellee served this motion to Appellant by overnight mail, pursuant to New 

Jersey Rule of Court 1:5-2. The proof of delivery shows that the motion arrived at 

Appellant‘s counsel‘s office the following day, on September 16, 2005. Later, on 

November 17, 2009, Appellee faxed a copy of its proposed order with respect to the 

motion in limine to Appellant‘s counsel, which Appellee had inadvertently neglected to 

include in the original motion. Appellant‘s counsel alleges that this fax, and not the 

original service, was his first notice of the motion. Nonetheless, the motion was granted, 

unopposed, on December 1, 2009. Appellant‘s first response to that motion was on 

January 5, 2010, when he filed a motion requesting that the court vacate the resulting

order. That motion was denied on January 22, 2010. Trial in the State Action was held 

from January 28, 2010 through February 18, 2010. On April 22, 2010, a final judgment 

was issued in Appellant‘s favor, and awarded him monetary damages for Appellee‘s 

violations of USERRA and NJLAD. 

The Complaint in this action (―the Federal Action‖) was filed on April 28, 2011. 

In the Federal Action, Appellant sought relief for the SFC-to-lieutenant promotions, the 
4

evidence of which was the subject of the motion in limine in the State Action. In 

response to the Complaint, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that 

the Federal Action is barred by the entire controversy doctrine and issue preclusion. That 

motion was granted on April 23, 2012. The District Court found that Appellant‘s claim 

in the Federal Action is barred by New Jersey‘s entire controversy doctrine; and, pursuant 

to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the District Court also refused to address the merits of 

the state court‘s orders with respect to the motion in limine. Appellant then timely 

appealed.1

II. Analysis

We exercise plenary review over the District Court‘s entry of summary judgment. 

Kautz v. Met-Pro Corp., 412 F.3d 463, 466 (3d Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is 

appropriate only where ―there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

[moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‖ FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In 

making our determination, we draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of 

Appellant. See Pastore v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 24 F.3d 508, 511–12 (3d Cir. 1994). 

The sole issue before us is whether New Jersey‘s entire controversy doctrine 

precludes Appellant from bringing his claim in the Federal Action.2 If it does, the 

District Court‘s entry of summary judgment on behalf of Appellee was proper.

 

1

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2

The District Court also concluded that ―[t]o the extent that [Appellant] contests 

the state court‘s ruling granting [NJSP‘s] motion in limine, or contests the court‘s ruling 

denying his subsequent motion to vacate,‖ his attack was barred by the Rooker-Feldman
5

This case is about the impact of state judgments in federal courts. Pursuant to the 

Full Faith and Credit Clause3of the Federal Constitution, and its implementing statute,4

―[i]t is now settled that a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same 

preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the 

judgment was rendered.‖ Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 80–

81 (1984). See also Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982).

Indeed, though the federal courts may look to the common law or to the 

policies supporting res judicata and collateral estoppel in assessing the 

preclusive effect of decisions of other federal courts, Congress has 

specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-

 

doctrine, which generally states that lower federal courts are without power to review 

state court decisions. See Parkview Assocs. P’ship v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 

324–25 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and D.C.

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)) (discussing Rooker-Feldman

doctrine). As noted above, that the state court granted the motion in limine precluded 

Appellant from introducing any evidence regarding the SFC-to-lieutenant promotions in 

the State Action. Appellant does not challenge this conclusion, and ―has no intention to 

directly or indirectly contest[] the state court‘s order in limine.‖ (Reply Brief on Behalf 

of Appellant at 8–9; see also Brief on Behalf of Appellant at 19–20.) Accordingly, that 

issue is not before us. But even if it were, we would be without power to review the state 

court‘s order with regard to the motion in limine. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 

460 (2006) (per curiam) (―The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal 

courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by  ̳state-court losers‘ challenging 

 ̳state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.‘‖ 

(quoting Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005))).

3

―Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, 

and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws 

prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and 

the Effect thereof.‖ U.S. CONST., art. IV, § 1.

4

The Federal Full Faith and Credit Statute provides, in pertinent part, that ―[s]uch 

acts, records and judicial proceedings . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in 

every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by 

law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are 

taken.‖ 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
6

court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments 

emerged would do so . . . .

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980). Accord RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF 

JUDGMENTS § 86 (1982).

In New Jersey, the entire controversy doctrine ―is an extremely robust claim 

preclusion device that requires adversaries to join all possible claims stemming from an 

event or series of events in one suit.‖ Paramount Aviation Corp. v. Agusta, 178 F.3d 132, 

135 (3d Cir. 1999). See also N.J. CT. R. 4:30A; In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215, 229 (3d 

Cir. 2008). The doctrine prevents a party from withholding part of a controversy to 

litigate later, even if the withheld claim constitutes a separate and independent cause of 

action. See Mullarkey, 536 F.3d at 229. As the Supreme Court of New Jersey has 

explained:

the entire controversy doctrine seeks to assure that all aspects of a legal 

dispute occur in a single lawsuit. The goals of the doctrine are to promote 

judicial efficiency, assure fairness to all parties with a material interest in an 

action, and encourage the conclusive determination of a legal controversy.

Olds v. Donnelly, 696 A.2d 633, 637 (N.J. 1997). See also Paramount Aviation Corp., 

178 F.3d at 137 (citing DiTrolio v. Antiles, 662 A.2d 494, 502 (N.J. 1995)).

New Jersey‘s entire controversy doctrine has ―evolved over time through the 

common law.‖ Mystic Isle Dev. Corp. v. Perskie & Nehmad, 662 A.2d 523, 529 (N.J. 

1995). The doctrine ―requires a court to adjudicate both equitable and legal issues arising 

from one underlying transaction.‖ Id. It extends to ―all affirmative claims that a party 

might have against another party, including counterclaims and cross-claims,‖ and ―parties 

with a material interest in the controversy.‖ Id. It also applies to ―constituent claims that 
7

arise during the pendency of the first action that were known to the litigant.‖ Id. At 

bottom, it is the ―commonality of facts, rather than the commonality of issues, parties or 

remedies that defines the scope of the controversy and implicates‖ the doctrine. 

DiTrolio, 662 A.2d at 504.

But the doctrine is an equitable one, and ―[t]he  ̳polestar of the application of the 

rule is judicial fairness.‘‖ Id. (quoting Reno Auto Sales, Inc. v. Prospect Park Sav. and 

Loan Ass’n, 581 A.2d 109, 113 (N.J. App. Div. 1990)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). As a result, the doctrine ―does not apply to bar component claims that are 

either unknown, unarisen or unaccrued at the time of the original action.‖ K-Land Corp. 

No. 28 v. Landis Sewerage Auth., 800 A.2d 861, 869 (N.J. 2002) (quoting Hillsborough 

Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Faridy Thorne Frayta, P.C., 728 A.2d 857, 860 (N.J. App. Div. 

1999)). And ―[i]n considering fairness to the party whose claim is sought to be barred, a 

court must consider whether the claimant had a fair and reasonable opportunity to have 

fully litigated that claim in the original action.‖ Id. at 870 (quoting Hillsborough Twp. 

Bd. of Educ., 728 A.2d at 861) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellant argues the doctrine does not bar him here because his claim had not 

―accrued‖ at the time of the State Action. He also argues that it would be unfair to bar his 

claim because of a lack of commonality with regard to the facts underlying the claims in 

the State Action and the Federal Action. He also asserts he did not have a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate his SFC-to-lieutenant promotion claim in the State Action. These

arguments fail.
8

Appellant argues that, because he could only be promoted to lieutenant if he held 

the rank of SFC, his claim underlying the Federal Action did not ―accrue‖ until August 

2010—eight months after the jury verdict was entered in the State Action—when his 

seniority date was corrected to reflect the fact that he had been retroactively promoted to 

SFC. He admits that ―it would have made sense to try the lieutenant‘s promotion claim

before the same Judge and same jury.‖ But Appellant asserts that he was ineligible for 

promotion to lieutenant until he succeeded on the merits of his SFC promotion claim, and 

his seniority date was corrected. As a result, he argues that his SFC-to-lieutenant 

promotion claim had not accrued at the time of the State Action.5 

In New Jersey, generally, ―a cause of action accrues when any wrongful act or 

omission resulting in any injury, however slight, for which the law provides a remedy, 

occurs.‖ Beauchamp v. Amedio, 751 A.2d 1047, 1050 (N.J. 2000). The only exception is 

―where the victim either is unaware that he has been injured or, although aware of an 

injury, does not know that a third party is responsible.‖ Id. Here, Appellant was injured 

the moment NJSP allegedly promoted unqualified SFCs to lieutenant. And Appellant 

knew about that injury in August 2009, before trial had begun in the State Action. As a 

 

5 Appellant also cites Morgan v. Covington Township, 648 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2011) 

to support his argument that any claim based on acts postdating the filing of a complaint 

are not barred under the entire controversy doctrine, and therefore can be asserted in later 

litigation. True, that is the rule in this Circuit with regard to claims predicated on events 

that postdate the filing of a federal complaint in a United States District Court. See id. at 

178. But that is not the rule in New Jersey. See Mystic Isle Dev. Corp., 662 A.2d at 529 

(entire controversy doctrine ―applies to constituent claims that arise during the pendency 

of the first action that were known to the litigant‖). It would be improper for us to 

impose our decisions regarding federal concepts of res judicata upon a state-based 

preclusion doctrine. See Allen, 449 U.S. at 96.
9

result, the entire controversy doctrine bars his claim because it had ―accrued‖ and was 

known to him during the pendency of the State Action. See Circle Chevrolet Co. v. 

Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 662 A.2d 509, 513 (N.J. 1995), abrogated on other 

grounds by Olds, 696 A.2d at 633 (―The entire controversy doctrine applies to constituent 

claims that arise during the pendency of the first action that were known to the litigant.‖). 

Under New Jersey law, his claim should have been brought in the State Action, even if 

his ―right‖ to retroactive promotion from SFC to lieutenant was dependent on the jury 

finding he had a ―right‖ to retroactive promotion to SFC and the subsequent correction to 

his seniority date. Cf. Bendar v. Rosen, 588 A.2d 1264, 1273 (N.J. App. Div. 1991) 

(entire controversy doctrine applied to bar a subsequent claim for contribution, requiring 

a cross-claim in the underlying tort action, although ―technically a right of contribution 

does not arise until a tortfeasor has paid more than his pro rata share‖). Appellant 

himself admits that litigating the two claims together would have ―made sense.‖

Appellant further argues that there is not sufficient commonality of facts for the 

entire controversy doctrine to apply. This is simply not the case here, as both claims 

―arise[] from a core set of related factual circumstances,‖ DiTrolio, 662 A.2d at 504—

namely, that NJSP discriminated against Appellant because of his active service in the 

military. Furthermore, Appellant had a fair and reasonable opportunity to raise his SFCto-lieutenant promotion claim in the State Action. Upon discovery of the SFC-tolieutenant promotions in August 2009, Appellant had ample time to amend his original 
10

complaint. And even assuming original service of the motion in limine was improper,6

and the November 17, 2009 fax was Appellant‘s first notice of Appellee‘s motion, 

Appellant‘s only response came over a month after the motion had been granted,

7

via his 

request that the state court vacate its order. Accordingly, Appellant ―had ample 

opportunity to have fully litigated the claim in the first action; he simply chose not to.‖ 

Id. at 506.

Accordingly, Appellant has identified no basis in law or fact as to why the entire 

controversy doctrine should not act to bar his claim here in the Federal Action. The 

District Court‘s entry of summary judgment in Appellee‘s favor was appropriate.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the District Court granting NJSP‘s motion 

for summary judgment is affirmed.

 

6 Appellant explains that his failure to respond to the NJSP‘s motion in limine was 

caused, at least in part, by failure of the delivery service to realize that counsel and all 

who worked at counsel‘s office entered the building through the back door. Because the 

delivery service instead left the motion at the front door, counsel alleges that he never 

received the motion. Even if we were to read Appellant‘s briefs liberally so as to raise an 

adequacy of service argument, service here was proper. See N.J. Ct. R. 1:5-2 (―Service 

upon an attorney . . . shall be made by mailing a copy to the attorney at his or her office 

by ordinary mail . . . .‖); cf. O’Connor v. Altus, 335 A.2d 545, 556 (N.J. 1975) (―An 

elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding . . . is notice 

reasonable calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 

pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.‖). 

7 All in all, a month-and-a-half after Appellant admits having received notice of 

the motion.