Urbank v. State

Full title: VINCENT A. URBANK, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Dec 29, 2004

Civil Action No. 04-4557 (MLC) (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-4557 (MLC).

December 29, 2004

ORDER JUDGMENT

MARY COOPER, District Judge

For the reasons stated in the Court's memorandum opinion, IT IS on this 29th day of December, 2004 ORDERED that the order to show cause why (1) the complaint should not be dismissed under (a) the domestic-relations exception, (b) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or (c) the Younger abstention doctrine, and (2) the separate motions for (a) class certification and appointment of counsel, (b) a three-judge panel, and (c) consolidation and transfer by the multi-district-litigation panel should not be denied (dkt. entry no. 7) is GRANTED IN PART and VACATED IN PART as follows:

GRANTED TO THE EXTENT that it concerns (1) dismissing the complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, and (2) denying all of the separate motions, and

VACATED TO THE EXTENT that it concerns the domestic-relations exception; and IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that the complaint is DISMISSED under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the separate motions for (1) class certification and appointment of counsel, (2) a three-judge panel, and (3) consolidation and transfer by the multi-district-litigation panel (dkt. entry nos. 5 6) are DENIED AS MOOT; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court designate the action as CLOSED.