Koshnick v. Lynott

JEFFREY A. KOSHNICK, Plaintiff, v. KEITH E. LYNOTT, et al Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-13818 (JXN) (ESK)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 15, 2021

OPINION

Julien Xavier Neals United States District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on three motions: (1) a motion by Defendants Keith E. Lynott, Jeffrey Beacham, and Shameikia Brown (collectively, the “Superior Court Defendants”) to dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 10]; (2) a motion by Cheryl Petroski and Anthony Corino (collectively the “PSEG Defendants”) to dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 15];^[1](3) a motion for an order to stay and for a preliminary injunction (“emergent motion”) [ECF No. 6] filed by pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey Koshnick (“Plaintiff”); and (4) a motion for preliminary injunction and stay filed by Plaintiff [ECF No. 37]. These matters are decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons stated herein the Defendants' motions to dismiss (“MTD”) [ECF Nos. 10, 15] are GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's emergent motion [ECF No. 6] and motion for preliminary injunction and stay [ECF No. 37] are DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[2]

Plaintiff has instituted multiple lawsuits in both federal and state court, which arise from an alleged fraudulent transfer of beneficiary designations for various employee benefits of his late father, Robert Koshnick, through Robert's employment with PSEG. See generally Plaintiff's Complaint (“Compl.”) and all attached exhibits, ECF No. 1. At the time of his passing in May of 2018, Robert had several employee benefits, including but not limited to an account under the PSEG 401(k) plan and life insurance coverage, which were sponsored by PSEG. Id. The pending lawsuits arising out of these operative facts are the following:

1. Jeffrey Koshnick v. Lorna Koshnick and Graham Koshnick, Docket No. ESX-L-8296-18 (hereafter referred to as the “2018 Koshnick Lawsuit”).

2. Jeffrey Koshnick v. Public Service Enterprise Group, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-5022-20, which was removed to this Court and assigned Civil Action No. 2:21-00618 (JXN)(ESK) (hereafter referred to as the “2021 Koshnick Lawsuit”).

3. Jeffrey Koshnick v. Keith E. Lynott, et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-13818 (JXN)(ESK) (the “instant matter”).

To provide context for the pending MTD, it is necessary to provide a brief synopsis of Plaintiff's Superior Court Complaints. The 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit involves Plaintiff's allegations that his mother, Lorna Koshnick, and his brother, Graham Koshnick, fraudulently accessed Robert's benefit plans and changed the beneficiary designations from Plaintiff to Lorna Koshnick, resulting in the improper payment of benefits. In the 2021 Koshnick Lawsuit, Plaintiff sued PSEG as plan sponsor of the 401(k) plan and the life insurance plan, Alight Solutions and Fidelity Workplace Services, LLC, as 401(k) plan third-party administrators and Met Life, Inc., as life insurance insurer.

In the instant matter, Plaintiff names as defendants Superior Court judges, Keith E. Lynott and Jeffrey B. Beacham; Superior Court employee Shamekia Brown; and PSEG employees, paralegal Cheryl Petroski and in-house counsel Anthony Corino. See Compl. at 2-3, ECF No. 1.^[3]Here, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action, alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) in connection with certain discovery activities that occurred in the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit. Id. at 4-7. Plaintiff's claims in connection with the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit relate to: (a) the service of four subpoenas duces tecum on PSEG by Plaintiff; (b) PSEG's responses to said subpoenas; and (c) several alleged ex parte filings by the PSEG Defendants with the Superior Court of New Jersey. See Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“PSEG Mem.”), ECF No. 15-1 at 6.

The pertinent factual allegations that Plaintiff has asserted in support of his claims are as follows. On May 24, 2019, the Honorable Robert H. Gardner, J.S.C. entered an unopposed Order in the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit, which compelled PSEG to provide information in response to Plaintiff's subpoena. ECF No. 1-6 (Exhibit F). On May 30, 2019, Defendant Corino forwarded ex parte communications to Judge Gardner, requesting that the May 24, 2019 Order be vacated and that the court consider PSEG's opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel. ECF No. 1-7 (Exhibit G). On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to hold PSEG in contempt for non-compliance with the May 24, 2019 Order. ECF No. 1-12 (Exhibit L). On October 1, 2019, Defendant Corino forwarded ex parte communications to Judge Gardner that requested Judge Gardner to, in part, accept the letter in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to hold PSEG in Contempt, and renewed the request to vacate the May 24, 2019 Order. ECF No. 1-9 (Exhibit I). On October 17, 2019, Defendant Corino submitted a 35-page facsimile transmission to Judge Lynott, in the care of Defendant Shamekia Brown, which confirmed a conversation between Defendant Petroski and Defendant Brown as to the transfer of the matter to Judge Lynott, and enclosed previous ex parte communications to the Court. ECF No. 1-10 (Exhibit J). Thereafter, Defendant Brown forwarded these communications to Judge Lynott and Judge Beachem, who used the communications to deny Plaintiff's motions. See Compl. at 25 ¶ 18; Id. at 28 ¶ 3; Id. at 29 ¶ 24. Plaintiff contends that “these ex parte communications violated the Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by depriving him of his Civil Right To Due Process Of Law [sic].” Id. at 5.

The Superior Court Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. In their motion to dismiss, the Superior Court Defendants contend that the suit must be dismissed upon absolute judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment Immunity, and for failing to state a claim. Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Dismissal (“Superior Court Defs.' Br.”), ECF No. 10-1. Thereafter, the PSEG Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, contending that the claims against them fail as a matter of law. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“PSEG's Mem.”), ECF No. 15-1.

On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an emergent motion for an order to stay and for a preliminary injunction. In the motion, Plaintiff contends that he will suffer irreparable harm if the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit is not stayed, and Judge Lynott and Judge Beachem are not removed from the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit and the Superior Court matter, Jeffrey Koshnick v. Public Service Enterprise Group, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-5022-20, which was removed to this Court and underlies the 2021 Koshnick Lawsuit. See Plaintiff's Emergent Motion, ECF No. 6 at 25. In response, the Superior Court Defendants argue that Plaintiff's emergent motion must be denied because “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the four factors favor preliminary relief.” Defendant's Brief in Opposition, ECF No. 7 at 6. Specifically, the Superior Court Defendants argue that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits because Judges Lynott and Beacham are absolutely immune from suit and not “persons” amendable to suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985. Id. at 6-7. On August 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed another motion for preliminary injunction and stay. See ECF No. 37. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Honorable Thomas R. Vena, J.S.C., from presiding over the 2018 Koshnick Lawsuit and to preliminarily stay the matter. Id. The Superior Court Defendants filed their opposition, ECF No. 42, to which Plaintiff replied, ECF No. 43. These motions are fully briefed and ripe for the Court to decide.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Standard of Review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) may be raised at any time. Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.Supp.2d 424, 437-38 (D.N.J. 1999). Rule 12(b)(1) challenges are either facial or factual attacks. See Moore's Federal Practice § 12.30[4] (3d ed. 2007). The defendant may facially challenge subject matter jurisdiction by arguing that the complaint, on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Iwanowa, 67 F.Supp.2d at 438. Under this standard, a court assumes that the allegations in the complaint are true, and may dismiss the complaint only if it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff will not be able to assert a colorable claim of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. The jurisdictional arguments made here are based on the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, the Court will take the allegations of the complaint as true. See Gould Elecs., Inc. v. U.S., 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000).

B. Standard of Review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]” For a complaint to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), it must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Further, a plaintiff must “allege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of her claims.” Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 2016). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, district courts must...