Opinion ID: 3025453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foster’s Claims Against the DOT Defendants

Text: The District Court held that it lacks jurisdiction over Foster’s claims against the DOT defendants under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We disagree. It later suggested, 2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There is some question whether the DOL defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(c). The District Court’s Rooker-Feldman ruling pursuant to its order to show cause might be construed as a grant of summary judgment. However its rulings are characterized, though, the relevant issues are ones of law, our review of which is plenary. See Fowler-Nash v. Democratic Caucus of Pa. House of Representatives, 469 F.3d 328, 330 n.1 (3d Cir. 2006); Atkinson v. Lafayette Coll., 460 F.3d 447, 451 (3d Cir. 2006). 4 however, that those claims are barred also by res judicata/claim preclusion, and defendants raise that issue on appeal. We will affirm on that alternative basis.3 Federal courts are required to give state court judgments the same preclusive effect that courts of the issuing state would give them. See Rycoline Prods., Inc. v. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883, 887 (3d Cir. 1997). “Under New Jersey law, res judicata or claim preclusion applies when (1) the judgment in the first action is valid, final and on the merits; (2) there is identity of the parties, or the parties in the second action are in privity with those in the first action; and (3) the claim in the later action grows out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim in the first action.” Jones v. Holvey, 29 F.3d 828, 830 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Each of these elements is present here. First, although the state court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify its basis, it clearly operates as a decision “on the merits” under New Jersey law because it dismissed Foster’s claims with prejudice 3 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits that are, in essence, appeals from state court judgments. After the District Court issued its ruling here, the Supreme Court clarified the narrow scope of the doctrine, explaining that it applies only when a plaintiff asks a district court to redress an injury caused by the state court judgment itself, and not merely when a plaintiff seeks to relitigate in district court a claim or issue already litigated in state court. See Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292-93 (2005); Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547-48 (2006). Here, Foster’s complaint merely raised the same claims against the DOT defendants that pre-dated her state court action. The complaint does not mention the state court judgment at all, and does not seek redress for any injury caused by that judgment. Thus, the District Court did not lack jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the effect of the state court judgment is determined by the law of preclusion. See Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 13; Turner, 449 F.3d at 547-48. 5 (and not without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or any other reason that does not constitute a ruling on the merits under New Jersey law). See ITT Corp. v. Intelnet Int’l Corp., 366 F.3d 205, 214 & n.17 (3d Cir. 2004); Velasquez v. Franz, 589 A.2d 143, 147-48 (N.J. 1991). Second, the DOT and Monahan were defendants in the state court action. Vida was not so named, but he is in privity with the DOT because Foster’s only potential federal claim lies against him in his official capacity. See Gregory v. Chehi, 843 F.2d 111, 120 (3d Cir. 1988) (relying on, inter alia, Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 51). See also Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Mem. Hosp., 857 F.2d 96, 113 (3d Cir. 1988) (noting New Jersey courts’ general reliance on the Restatement (Second) of Judgments). Finally, Foster’s claims here are predicated on the same series of events that she alleged in her state court action.4 Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Foster’s claims against the DOT defendants. B. Foster’s Federal Claims Against the DOL Defendants On appeal, Foster seeks reinstatement only of her claims against the DOT 4 We recognize that Foster alleges that the DOT refused to rehire her on the basis of her previous employment history in October 2003, after her state court suit had been dismissed in March 2003. The record, however, reveals that the DOT had refused to rehire her on that same basis in both October and December 2002. She thus could have raised that issue in her state court proceeding, and New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine precludes her from raising it now. See Rycoline, 109 F.3d at 885-86. We also note that Foster fully litigated the DOT’s refusal to rehire her on the basis of her previous employment history in the MSB, that the MSB ruled that the DOT was justified in refusing to rehire her on that basis, and that the Appellate Division affirmed. We need not decide whether that litigation provides an additional ground for concluding that Foster may not relitigate this component of her claim in federal court. 6 defendants and has not raised any claim of error as to the District Court’s dismissal of her Title VII or ADA claims against the DOL defendants. She has thus waived any potential error in that regard. C. Remaining Issues Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Foster’s federal claims. Having done so, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims (and Foster does not argue otherwise on appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 175 (3d Cir. 1999). The District Court also denied Foster leave to amend her complaint to add the MSB and various of its personnel as defendants. For the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that such amendment would have been futile, and the District Court acted within its discretion in that respect as well. See Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 134 (3d Cir. 2005). For these reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court. Foster’s request for oral argument is denied. 7