JAMES RAPISARDI, Executor of the Estate of Rosario Rapisardi v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3467
___________
JAMES RAPISARDI, Executor of
the Estate of Rosario Rapisardi
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;
MICHAEL PISANI,
Department Supervisor (in his official capacity)
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-00654)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 7, 2008
Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed April 14, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________

-- 1 of 5 --

1 We need not repeat the details of the underlying dispute as they are well-known to
the parties and are summarized in the District Court’s memorandum.
2
PER CURIAM
This case arose after the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
instigated administrative proceedings against Rosario and James Rapisardi for violations
of the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1 to -40.1 In
response, Plaintiff, James Rapisardi, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Rosario
Rapisardi, filed a complaint in the District Court against the State of New Jersey seeking
the dismissal of all State court actions and judgments against him and the estate. On
August 7, 2007, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that,
“[u]nder the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court is prohibited from taking jurisdiction
over a claim appealing a state court decision.” Rapisardi now appeals from the District
Court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking “federal review of the facts of this case.” (See
Compl. at 1.)
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise
plenary review of the District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006). We
also exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). See In re Cybergenics Corp., 226 F.3d 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2000).
In some circumstances, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district

-- 2 of 5 --

3
court of jurisdiction to review a state court adjudication. Turner, 449 F.3d at 547. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Here, Rapisardi
seeks to dismiss all judgments against him issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, and to vacate all fines, penalties, sanctions and restoration orders
imposed. He also seeks to expunge both his own credit record and that of the estate of
Rosario Rapisardi. Rapisardi disputes the District Court’s conclusion that his claims are
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The allegations concerning the fines, penalties, sanctions and restoration orders
issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, as well as the resulting
damage to the Rapisardis’ credit reports, clearly constitute complaints about putative
injuries caused by a state court judgment. Thus, the District Court properly concluded
that it lacked jurisdiction over these claims. See Holt v. Lake County Bd. of Comm’rs,
408 F.3d 335, 336 (7th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s action barred by Rooker-Feldman because
“[plaintiff’s] injury was caused by the state court judgments . . . [and] absent the state
court’s judgment . . . [plaintiff] would not have the injury he now seeks to redress”) (per
curiam) (cited in Turner, 449 F.3d at 547).
Rapisardi argues that New Jersey did not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to
prosecute the charges against him, pursuant to Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715

-- 3 of 5 --

2
Plaintiff refers to the case in his papers as Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
however, the matter appeared before the Supreme Court as a consolidated case and is
captioned as Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
4
(2006) and, therefore, that federal subject matter jurisdiction is proper.2 Rapanos is
inapposite. In Rapanos, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify what qualifies as a
regulable water under the federal Clean Water Act for purposes of the exercise of federal
jurisdiction over certain waterways. The opinion does not, however, provide any basis
for subject matter jurisdiction over Rapisardi’s claims, which seek to overturn various
state court judgments against James and Rosario Rapisardi for the violation of state
environmental laws.
Moreover, to the extent that review of any of Ripardi’s claims is not barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, they are barred by res judicata because he is attempting to
relitigate issues previously determined by the New Jersey Superior Court. Under New
Jersey law, res judicata requires the following elements: (1) the final judgment in the
prior action must be valid, final, and on the merits; (2) the parties in the later action must
be identical to or in privity with those in the prior action; and (3) the claim in the later
action must grow out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim in the earlier one.
See McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Comm’n of the State of N.J., 828 A.2d 840,
859
(N.J. 2003). There is no question that all three elements are present here; therefore, res

-- 4 of 5 --

3
In his reply brief, Rapisardi argues that federal jurisdiction is proper based on alleged
constitutional violations resulting from the state court judgments against him. However,
we need not address these allegations for the first time on appeal, as Rapisardi did not
raise these claims in his complaint before the District Court. See Ross v. Hotel
Employees and Rest. Employees Int’l Union, 266 F.3d 236, 242 (3d Cir. 2001).
5
judicata precludes federal court review of any of the claims presented in this case.3

-- 5 of 5 --