Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Copeland v. State

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

February 8, 2019

MARCIA COPELAND, M.D., Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JUDGE NAN FAMULAR, ROBERT SALDUTTI, ESQ., DEUTCHE BANK, Defendants.

          MARCIA COPELAND, M.D. 2 APPLE RIDGE WAY EAST BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08816 Plaintiff appearing pro se

          BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF N.J. 25 MARKET ST, 7TH FL, WEST WING PO BOX 116 TRENTON, N.J. 08625 On behalf of Defendants the State of New Jersey and Judge Nan Famular

          REBECCA K. MCDOWELL SALDUTTI LAW GROUP 800 N KINGS HIGHWAY SUITE 300 CHERRY HILL, N.J. 08034 On behalf of Defendant Robert Saldutti, Esquire

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This is the sixth federal court action filed by Plaintiff, Marcia Copeland, M.D., concerning a state court default judgment entered against her in February 2012.[1] This action is a virtual duplicate of her fifth action, COPELAND V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 1:17-cv-12104-NLH-JS (“Copeland V”). The only material differences are the addition of new Defendants, Judge Nan Famular and Deutsche Bank, and the elimination of all other Defendants except for the State of New Jersey and Robert Saldutti, Esq. The Court dismissed Copeland V on the bases of judicial immunity, res judicata, New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and Plaintiff's failure to state any cognizable claims.[2] (1:17-cv-12104, Docket No. 95.)

         Three motions are pending before the Court in this case. Defendants Robert Saldutti, Esq. (Docket No. 3), and the State of New Jersey and Judge Nan Famular (Docket No. 4) have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them, [3] and Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal (Docket No. 9).

         For Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Saldutti and the State of New Jersey, the Court incorporates the analysis in Copeland V and will dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them for the same reasons expressed in Copeland V, which asserted identical claims against these two defendants.[4]

         For the newly added Defendant, Judge Nan Famular, Plaintiff claims the following:

Judges unilaterally decided to validate a contract against existing laws and implemented enforcement procedures for decision based on bias and hate. Judge stated in transcript Copeland, a physician, was evading her court and plaintiff was inherently [indecipherable.] She took rent notified no creditor/shareholder and paid no [indecipherable].

(Docket No. 1 at 3.)

         In another almost identical case, 1:18-cv-00019-NLH-KMW, see supra note 1, Plaintiff asserted claims against Judge Famular, who is the Presiding Judge of the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division (General Equity Part) in Camden County, for “treason” and “attempted theft, ” among other allegations. Plaintiff's claims against Judge Famular were dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity[5] and for Plaintiff's failure to state any cognizable claims against Judge Famular.[6] (1:18-cv-00019-NLH-KMW, Docket No. 23 at 5-6.)

         Judge Famular has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against her in this action on the same bases. It is evident, even from Plaintiff's sparse and insufficiently pleaded claims, that Plaintiff's allegations against Judge Famular arise from Judge Famular's actions taken in her judicial capacity, and there are no allegations that Judge Famular's actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Consequently, Plaintiff's claims against Judge Famular must be dismissed on the basis of absolute judicial immunity.

         With regard to Plaintiff's motion for recusal, this Court addressed - and denied - Plaintiff's identical motion in Copeland V. (Copeland V, Docket No. 107.) The Court adopts the analysis in Copeland V and will similarly decline to recuse from this case.

         Finally, as also found by the Court in Copeland V, the “history of this case and Plaintiff's unrelenting efforts to relitigate a 2012 state court judgment by filing numerous, repetitive, and unmeritorious lawsuits in both state and federal court against any and all parties involved appears to warrant the imposition of sanctions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.