Opinion ID: 399428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether There is State Action.

Text: 110 The district court, without discussion, referred to the state action of the county clerk filing the notice of lis pendens. 519 F.Supp. at 1260. Judge Sloviter has analyzed this issue and found that state action exists. I disagree. 111 In Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978), the Supreme Court held that state action does not exist by virtue of a state statute which permits a warehouseman to enforce a lien for storage charges by a sale of the stored goods. The adoption of a system of rights and remedies does not in and of itself constitute state action. The Supreme Court distinguished the line of cases dealing with state action under creditor-remedy statutes on the ground that the facts in Flagg Bros. showed a lack of overt official involvement. 436 U.S. at 157, 98 S.Ct. at 1734. The Court went on to say: 112 This situation is clearly distinguishable from cases such as North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751) (1975); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556) (1972); and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349) (1969). In each of those cases a government official participated in the physical deprivation of what had concededly been the constitutional plaintiff's property under state law before the deprivation occurred. The constitutional protection attaches not because, as in North Georgia Finishing, a clerk issued a ministerial writ out of the court, but because as a result of that writ the property of the debtor was seized and impounded by the affirmative command of the law of Georgia. The creditor in North Georgia Finishing had not simply sought to pursue the collection of his debt by private means permissible under Georgia law; he had invoked the authority of the Georgia court, which in turn had ordered the garnishee not to pay over money which previously had been the property of the debtor. See Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (25 L.Ed. 667) (1880); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161) (1948). 113 436 U.S. at 160-61 n.10, 98 S.Ct. at 1735-36 n.10 (emphasis added). 114 In this case, the county clerk took the notice of lis pendens and filed it, in accordance with the statute. The clerk exercised no discretion; the filing of the notice was, as in Flagg Bros., a purely ministerial act. I see no difference between the extent of state involvement here and that which we found insufficient for purposes of state action in Gibbs v. Titelman, 502 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1039, 95 S.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed.2d 316 (1974). There, the ministerial acts of the clerk involved the issuance of a certificate of ownership. We held that such minimal involvement by the state does not transform an essentially private transaction into a state action. This position was reaffirmed in Parks v. Mr. Ford, 556 F.2d 132, 141 (3d Cir. 1977) (en banc). 115 The filing of the lis pendens creates no substantive rights in any party; therefore, no rights are created or denied by the actions of the clerk. In fact, neither the lis pendens statute nor any other law compels the filing of the lis pendens. Filing is not a prerequisite to the institution or maintenance of the suit. The powers of the sovereign are not invoked, nor is its authority used to affect property rights. The action remains private, not public; it involves only private parties and privately owned realty. The state merely acquiesces. As the Supreme Court stated in Flagg Bros., (t)his court ... has never held that a State's mere acquiescence in a private action converts that action into that of the State. 436 U.S. at 164, 98 S.Ct. at 1737. 116 For these reasons I would find no state action present here. To me, neither the enactment of the statute nor the filing of the lis pendens by the county clerk implicates the procedural due process guarantees upon which the decision of the majority rests. 117 C. Whether the Procedure Under the New Jersey Lis Pendens Statute Complies with Due Process. 118 I agree with the views set forth in the majority opinion to the extent that they do not contradict the analysis I have set forth above regarding the lack of a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. If it were necessary to reach the issue, I would hold that the New Jersey lis pendens statute comports with the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. 119 For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the judgment rendered by the majority, reversing the decision of the district court and holding the New Jersey lis pendens statute to be constitutional.