George Pieczenik v. Commissioner New Jersey Depart
16-3579
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Pieczenik, a tenant/leaseholder, challenged mowing and maintenance restrictions contained in an administrative consent order (ACO) between NJDEP and the property owner; he alleged the restrictions effectively require GPS-identified mowing limits and burden him.
- He sued the NJDEP Commissioner, the Bureau Section Chief, and enforcement officers seeking: a declaration that the ACO is void as applied to him and an injunction preventing enforcement without a hearing or compensation (taking claim).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, expressly disclaiming any intention to apply the ACO to Pieczenik (they said enforcement, if any, would be for independent violations of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) against him as a tenant).
- The District Court dismissed without prejudice for lack of justiciability but allowed Pieczenik leave to amend to raise a FWPA-based claim; Pieczenik appealed the dismissal of his ACO challenge.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded the suit presented no justiciable case or controversy because defendants will not and do not intend to apply the ACO against Pieczenik; speculative threats via the landlord were insufficiently imminent.
- Court also rejected Pieczenik’s default-judgment argument: defendants timely moved, default relief is discretionary, and courts must consider jurisdiction before entering default judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Justiciability to challenge ACO | Pieczenik argued the ACO’s terms affect him and the Bureau’s letter threatened enforcement against him, creating a real risk of application | Defendants disavowed any intent to apply or enforce the ACO against Pieczenik; any action would be based on independent FWPA violations, not the ACO | No justiciable controversy; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Ripeness / Declaratory relief | Sought declaratory judgment that ACO is void as applied to him to prevent future enforcement | Defendants’ disavowal and lack of imminent enforcement make the claim speculative | Claim not ripe; would be advisory, so declaratory relief denied |
| Third-party enforcement via landlord (indirect injury) | Argued NJDEP could enforce ACO against landlord and landlord could then affect him (e.g., eviction), creating a practical threat | Defendants noted they would not enforce ACO against Pieczenik and speculative landlord actions are insufficient to confer standing | Speculation about landlord responses insufficient to create a real and substantial probability of injury; standing fails |
| Entitlement to default judgment for late response | Argued Clerk’s extension violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) and defendants’ response was untimely, warranting default | Defendants filed within time allowed by local rule/extension; default is discretionary and courts must assess jurisdiction first | No automatic default; district court discretion appropriate and jurisdictional concerns counsel against default |
Key Cases Cited
- Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.) (standard of plenary review for jurisdictional dismissals)
- Erie Telecomms. v. Erie, 853 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir.) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
- Florida Audubon Soc. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir.) (constitutional case-or-controversy requirement)
- Salvation Army v. Dep’t of Community Affairs, 919 F.2d 183 (3d Cir.) (requirements for declaratory relief against feared future action)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (U.S.) (limits on advisory opinions/declaratory relief)
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir.) (finality/appealability of dismissals without prejudice)
- Pa. Family Inst., Inc. v. Black, 489 F.3d 156 (3d Cir.) (limitations on curing jurisdictional defects after dismissal for lack of standing)
- United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192 (3d Cir.) (default judgments disfavored and within district court discretion)
- Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir.) (duty to consider jurisdiction before entering default judgment)