The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT KUGLER, Magistrate Judge
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] OPINION
In this diversity case, plaintiff Candace Capoferri ("Candace")
sues her ex-husband, defendant Robert Capoferri ("Robert"), along
with defendants Patricia Gatto,*fn1 Joseph Capoferri
("Joseph"), and Frank Comparri, for fraud, conversion,
conspiracy, and accomplice liability. Candace's claims arise out
of actions allegedly taken by the defendants during Candace and
Robert's 1999 divorce. This matter comes before the Court upon
(1) Robert's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and (2)
Comparri's motion to join in Robert's motion.
Robert moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint on four grounds.
First, Robert argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this Court from exercising jurisdiction over Candace's
claims. Second, Robert argues that "domestic relations are
governed by state law." Third, Robert argues that Candace has a
remedy in the New Jersey courts. Fourth, Robert argues that the
statute of limitations has expired on Candace's claims.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, (1) Comparri's
motion to join in Robert's motion will be granted, and (2)
Robert's motion to dismiss (in which Comparri joins) will be
The following factual allegations are taken from the Amended
Complaint and the exhibits attached to Robert's motion to
Robert and Candace were married on August 12, 1995. Candace
moved out of the marital home in late 1998. Robert filed for
divorce on January 26, 1999.
In early February 1999, the parties reconciled and Candace
moved back into the marital home. Unbeknownst to Candace, though,
Robert filed a motion for summary judgment in the divorce case on
March 3, 1999. Robert's motion requested enforcement of a
purported August 9, 1995 antenuptial agreement ("Agreement"). The
Agreement substantially limited the assets to which Candace would
otherwise be entitled under New Jersey law if the marriage ended. Although Robert certified that the Agreement
had voluntarily been entered into by both parties, the signature
on the Agreement was not Candace's. Candace never received notice
of Robert's motion to enforce the Agreement.
On April 27, 1999, Comparri a friend of Robert's filed an
affidavit of service stating that he had served a summons and
copy of the divorce complaint on Joan Demarco, Candace's mother,
on April 21, 1999. However, neither Candace nor her mother ever
received the papers.
On May 13, 1999, having found that Candace had notice of the
proceedings and that Candace and Robert had voluntarily entered
into the Agreement, the Honorable Max A. Baker ordered that the
Agreement was enforceable and would remain in full force and
On June 8, 1999, Robert requested that the Agreement be
incorporated into a final judgment of divorce. Although Candace
never received notice of the request, a return receipt for the
notice was signed by Gatto, an employee of Robert, on June 9,
On July 2, 1999, Judge Baker entered a final judgment of
divorce. Judge Baker found that Candace had been served with the
summons and complaint on April 21, 1999. Once more finding that
Candace and Robert had freely and voluntarily entered into the
Agreement, Judge Baker ordered that Candace and Robert were divorced and that the Agreement would be part of the final
Candace never received a copy of the final order of divorce. A
return receipt for the final order was signed on August 3, 1999
by Joseph Capoferri, Robert's brother and employee.
Candace learned for the first time that she was divorced, and
that equitable distribution had been adjudicated, on July 19,
2001. She now argues that the defendants intentionally prevented
her from receiving notice of the divorce proceedings and
appearing therein to defend her financial interests. Further, she
alleges, Robert intentionally caused a fraudulent antenuptial
agreement to be incorporated into the final judgment of divorce.