KENNEDY v. THE NEW JERSEY COURT SYSTEM, 1:22-cv-05797

Background

Pro se plaintiff Hilda Kennedy sued the New Jersey Judiciary under Title II of the ADA and the NJLAD, alleging judges discriminated against her in four state-court matters (assault, auto injury, landlord-tenant, malpractice).
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, remediation of alleged barriers, and compensatory damages; she filed the federal complaint on September 28, 2022 and sought to amend it.
Defendant (New Jersey Court System) moved to dismiss and opposed amendment, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and related defenses.
Court held New Jersey has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for NJLAD claims, so all NJLAD claims were dismissed.
The Court found Title II of the ADA can abrogate sovereign immunity only to the extent it vindicates Fourteenth Amendment rights, but applied Rooker–Feldman to bar federal review of state-court judgments that were effectively final before the federal suit.
Result: ADA and NJLAD claims tied to two state cases that were final before filing were dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff was granted leave (30 days) to amend limited to ADA claims arising from the two state matters that were not effectively final (landlord-tenant and malpractice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity / NJLAD claims	Kennedy contends state judiciary can be sued under NJLAD in federal court for discrimination	NJ Judiciary argues Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits under NJLAD because NJ has not consented	Court: NJLAD claims dismissed — New Jersey has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity
ADA Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity	Kennedy says Title II allows ADA suits against the State for disability discrimination	NJ argues sovereign immunity limits suits and individual judges are not liable under ADA	Court: Title II can abrogate immunity only to the extent it enforces Fourteenth Amendment; ADA claims against individual judges are not permitted
Rooker–Feldman (federal review of state judgments)	Kennedy asks federal court to remedy or undo adverse state-court rulings as discriminatory	NJ argues Rooker–Feldman bars district court from reviewing final state-court judgments	Court: Rooker–Feldman bars ADA claims that challenge state judgments rendered effectively final before the federal suit (first two cases); claims tied to non-final/post-filing state matters allowed to be amended
Leave to amend (Rule 15)	Kennedy sought leave to amend broadly to pursue ADA/NJLAD relief and class action	NJ opposed amendment as futile and jurisdictionally barred	Court: Grant in part — allowed limited amendment (ADA claims only) for two non-final state cases; denied other amendment requests (NJLAD, claims tied to final judgments, class action)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II abrogation allowed only for conduct that actually violates the Fourteenth Amendment)
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court absent consent)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (state agencies/"arms of the state" share sovereign immunity)
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (Rooker–Feldman prohibits lower federal courts from reversing final state-court judgments)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (clarified Rooker–Feldman scope)
Merritts v. Richards, 62 F.4th 764 (3d Cir. 2023) (defines when a state-court result is "effectively final" for Rooker–Feldman)
Fitchnik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1989) (factors for determining whether an entity is an "arm of the state")
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain more than conclusory allegations)