H. James Rippon v. Leroy Smigel, Esq.
158 A.3d 23
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff H. James Rippon (Pennsylvania resident) alleged defendants—attorney Leroy Smigel, his Pennsylvania law firm, and Rippon's then‑spouse Caylene—interfered with his purchase of a Stone Harbor, NJ home by sending a September 19, 2013 letter to NJ lenders and a title company. The letter warned of marital claims, a pending PA support action, and a PFA protecting Caylene.
- Prior to the letter, plaintiff had sued Smigel and the firm in Pennsylvania (Sept. 12, 2013) for breach of fiduciary duty; that action was withdrawn with prejudice on June 10, 2014 as part of an interim stipulation in the parties’ divorce proceedings.
- Plaintiff filed a five‑count complaint in New Jersey (Sept. 16, 2015) asserting tortious interference (contractual and prospective), defamation, Consumer Fraud Act, and unauthorized practice of law. No discovery had been conducted when defendants moved to dismiss.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, failure to state a claim, and res judicata (relying on plaintiff’s prior praecipe withdrawing the PA action with prejudice).
- The Law Division dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding (1) no general or specific jurisdiction over Smigel/the firm, (2) New Jersey an improper forum (forum non conveniens), and (3) res judicata barred plaintiff’s claims against Smigel/the firm. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Smigel/the firm (general) | Smigel/the firm have sufficient contacts with NJ (e.g., letter, some representation in NJ) and plaintiff should get jurisdictional discovery | Smigel certified firm is based in PA, has no NJ office, does not "regularly" practice in NJ, and thus NJ lacks general jurisdiction | Reversed: record too thin to decide general jurisdiction; plaintiff entitled to jurisdictional discovery before dismissal |
| Personal jurisdiction over Smigel/the firm (specific) | The September 19, 2013 letter was purposefully directed to NJ and caused injury in NJ—single tortious act can support specific jurisdiction | Letter concerned PA proceedings and was part of PA representation; insufficient NJ contacts for specific jurisdiction | Reversed: court failed to analyze specific jurisdiction; single tortious act can provide basis and discovery required to develop record |
| Forum non conveniens | Rippon’s choice of NJ forum is permissible (property and NJ recipients are local); defendants must show serious inconvenience and adequate alternative forum | Case centers on PA matrimonial litigation; plaintiff is PA resident; trial in PA would be more appropriate | Reversed: trial court made insufficient findings and dismissed prematurely; parties must be allowed discovery before forum non conveniens ruling |
| Res judicata (prior PA praecipe) | The PA praecipe withdrawing the earlier complaint was not a merits adjudication and the September 2013 letter post‑dates the PA complaint, so res judicata does not bar the NJ action | The prior dismissal with prejudice extinguished claims against Smigel/the firm | Reversed: praecipe was not an adjudication on the merits and the letter‑based claims arose after the PA complaint, so res judicata did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317 (discusses sufficiency of contacts and that knowingly sending a false statement into a state can establish jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (constitutional standard for personal jurisdiction and substantial connection test)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and single act contacts may establish specific jurisdiction)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (plaintiff should be allowed jurisdictional discovery unless claims are frivolous)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Estate of Simpson, 290 N.J. Super. 519 (trial court must make findings of jurisdictional facts and hold preliminary evidentiary hearing if necessary)
- Jacobs v. Walt Disney World Co., 309 N.J. Super. 443 (prima facie showing of contacts in early stages)
- D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 115 N.J. 491 (forum non conveniens rulings are enhanced by post‑discovery record)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (res judicata does not bar claims based on events that postdate the filing of the initial complaint)