KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C
3:22-cv-04174
D.N.J.May 24, 2023Background
- Plaintiff alleges that in March 2022 a New Jersey sheriff (on papers from NY proceedings) levied and garnished his TD Bank accounts based on arbitration awards and a writ of execution tied to Borelli & Associates for unpaid legal fees.
- Plaintiff says he paid BA tens of thousands earlier, disputes the asserted balance, never received service/notice in the NY proceedings, and asserts due-process and equal-protection violations plus related claims (including an FDCPA claim against TD Bank and conspiracy/fraud claims tied to a 2010 PepsiCo litigation).
- Plaintiff sued many defendants (law firms, individual attorneys, state judges, sheriff, TD Bank, PepsiCo and employees); he amended the complaint and sought to dismiss one count voluntarily before decision.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6); the court evaluated personal jurisdiction, Rooker–Feldman, FDCPA sufficiency, and conspiracy pleading standards.
- The Court held most claims implicating state-court judgments were barred by Rooker–Feldman and dismissed Counts 1, 2, and 4–8 with prejudice; Count 3 was dismissed with prejudice to the extent it sought review of the writ but the FDCPA claim against TD Bank was dismissed without prejudice; conspiracy and jurisdictional defects led to dismissal without prejudice as to other defendants.
- The Court found no general or specific personal jurisdiction over certain New York attorneys (Michael Borelli, Anthony Malecki, Richard Hunter) and granted limited leave to amend (30 days) only to cure deficiencies identified for claims dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may review/relitigate state-court/arbitration judgments (Rooker–Feldman) | Plaintiff seeks relief for due-process/equal-protection injuries caused by state-court/arbitration orders and asks federal court to undo those orders | Defendants invoke Rooker–Feldman to bar federal review of state-court decisions | Court: Rooker–Feldman bars review; Counts 1,2,4–8 and parts of 3 dismissed with prejudice |
| FDCPA claim against TD Bank for withdrawing more than communicated amount | TD Bank unlawfully withdrew/held funds in excess and is liable as a debt collector under FDCPA | TD Bank is not a debt collector; plaintiff fails to plead TD Bank’s status or debt-collection purpose | Court: FDCPA claim dismissed without prejudice as plaintiff failed to allege TD Bank is a debt collector |
| Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state attorneys (Borelli, Malecki, Hunter) | Plaintiff contends ancillary/supplemental jurisdiction and conspiracy allegations suffice to bring them into NJ forum | Defendants argue they lack sufficient contacts with NJ for general or specific jurisdiction | Court: no general or specific jurisdiction; claims against those attorneys dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of conspiracy/civil-fraud allegations tied to PepsiCo litigation | Plaintiff alleges defendants conspired to present false testimony and conceal commercialization evidence causing dismissal of his whistleblower suit | Defendants say allegations are conclusory and lack time, parties, and agreement detail required to plead conspiracy | Court: conspiracy allegations are conclusory under Twombly/Iqbal; Count 9 dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (federal courts may not review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (clarified limits on federal review of state court decisions)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (articulated modern Rooker–Feldman test)
- Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010) (applications of Rooker–Feldman and conspiracy pleading standards)
- Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) (plaintiff’s burden on personal jurisdiction after a Rule 12(b)(2) challenge)
- Mellon Bank PSFS, Nat'l Ass'n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) (personal jurisdiction standards)
- Patterson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 893 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1990) (plaintiff must support jurisdictional allegations with competent evidence)
- Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1984) (jurisdictional fact-finding beyond pleadings)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (prima facie standard for jurisdictional allegations without an evidentiary hearing)
- Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (same)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction standard)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction and "at home" test)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (focus on defendant's forum contacts for specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and relatedness for specific jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (conclusory allegations insufficient to plead conspiracy)
- Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2015) (elements of a FDCPA claim)