Wolf ex rel. D.C. v. Escala

KARIN WOLF, Individually and on Behalf of D.C. and G.C. Plaintiffs, v. GERALD C. ESCALA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-5985

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

May 20, 2015

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

ARLEO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Before this Court are motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) by the following defendants: (1) Peter Van Aulen, Esq. [Dkt. No. 8]; (2) Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Roger W. Spencer, and Janet Tenore (the "Good Shepherd Defendants") [Dkt. No. 14]; (3) the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (the "ACJC"), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (the "Appellate Division"), the Bergen County Family Court of the Superior Court of New Jersey (the "Bergen County Family Court"), the Office of Court Administration, Judge Victor Ashrafi, Judge Harry G. Carroll, Judge William R. DeLorenzo, Judge Peter Doyne, Judge Gerald C. Escala, Judge John C. Kennedy, Judge Ellen L. Koblitz, Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol, Judge William E. Nugent, Judge Jerome M. St. John, Judge Joseph L. Yannotti, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Kathy Katona, Esq., and Diana Moskal (collectively, the "Judiciary Defendants") [Dkt. No. 19]; (4) the Office of the County Counsel (the "OCC") [Dkt. No. 20]; (5) Lisa Estrin [Dkt. No. 21]; (6) Luciana Coutinho, Marleni Coutinho,Plinio Coutinho (collectively, the "Coutinhos"), and Edward J. Crane [Dkt. No. 22]; (7) Dionos Burgos, Sandra Cruz, the Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS," now known as "Child Protection and Permanency"), Erika Frank, Debbie Gomez, Tara Horne, Ivan Nina, and Patrick Yan (collectively, the "DYFS Defendants") [Dkt. No. 31]; and (8) Judith Brown Greif ("Dr. Greif") [Dkt. No. 32].¹ Pro se Plaintiff Karin Wolf opposes these motions. No oral argument was heard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions in connection with this motion, and for the reasons set forth herein, all motions are GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of herself and her two children, D.C. and G.C. (collectively, the "Children"), on September 24, 2014. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. Although Plaintiff's 120-page Complaint is somewhat difficult to decipher, this action apparently arises out of Plaintiff's 2007 divorce from her husband, Edward Crane, and ensuing child custody proceedings that ended with the Bergen County Family Court awarding legal and physical custody of the Children to Mr. Crane on August 30, 2013. See id. ¶¶ 86-87. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff names as defendants essentially any person or entity with any conceivable connection to the state court custody proceedings. See id. ¶¶ 30-75. The custody proceedings are therefore at the heart of the Complaint.

A. Custody Proceedings

Plaintiff and Mr. Crane were married in 2000 and have two children together. Id. ¶¶ 35, 86. Shortly after marrying, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Crane subjected her to all manner of abuse that ultimately led Plaintiff to file for divorce for the first time in 2005. See id. ¶¶ 94-98. Rather than go through with the divorce, however, Plaintiff agreed to enter marriage counseling, which lasted for one-and-a-half years. Id. ¶ 98. Plaintiff alleges that she ultimately left the marital home with the Children on September 29, 2006, "due to domestic violence." Id. ¶ 86. On December 1, 2006, Plaintiff was named the custodial parent at a pendente lite hearing. Id. On January 17, 2007, Plaintiff and Mr. Crane entered into a consent order in which they agreed to joint legal custody, with Plaintiff remaining as the custodial parent. Id. A final judgment of divorce was thereafter entered on May 22, 2007. Id. ¶ 86. Plaintiff claims that following their separation and divorce and continuing through the present, Mr. Crane "harassed" and abused Plaintiff and the Children. Id. ¶ 87, 101; see also id. ¶¶ 102-07. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that she "moved herself and the Children to Florham Park to put distance between them and [Mr. Crane]." Id. ¶ 108.

Significant custody issues first arose in January 2010, when Mr. Crane filed suit (through his attorney, Defendant Peter Van Aulen, Esq.) against Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, parental alienation. Id. ¶ 109. Plaintiff claims that Mr. Crane's motion papers contained false statements and that he manufactured fraudulent evidence. Id. The subsequent proceedings resulted in the entry of another consent order, which included an agreement to use a "parenting coordinator." Id. ¶ 110. Plaintiff then began a new job on November 1, 2010, in Manhattan, which apparently led to a dispute regarding Mr. Crane's visitation rights with the Children. Id. ¶ 112. Plaintiff also states that she moved to Staten Island, New York, around this time. Id. ¶ 114.

Because Plaintiff moved out of New Jersey, Mr. Crane filed an order to show cause on February 1, 2011. Id. ¶ 115. In response to Mr. Crane's filing, Plaintiff cross-moved for various forms of relief, including:

[F]or denial of [Mr. Crane's] motion in entirety, [Mr. Crane] to be held in contempt for breach of contract, child support, sole legal custody and anger management because [Mr. Crane] was harassing [Plaintiff], psychological evaluation of [Mr. Crane], contempt for obstructing use of parenting coordinator, relief from legal abuse, [Mr. Crane] to be deemed vexatious litigant, punitive damages, tax refunds, unreimbursed medical expenses, etc.

Id. ¶ 135. Defendant Judge William R. DeLorenzo² of the Bergen County Family Court issued an order on March 28, 2011, denying Plaintiff's application in its entirety. Id. ¶¶ 37, 136.

In or about February or March of 2012, Plaintiff hired Defendant Roger Radol, Esq., as her attorney in the custody proceedings. Id. ¶ 139. In the summer of 2012, Plaintiff terminated Mr. Radol, allegedly for failing to communicate with Plaintiff, for misleading Plaintiff, and for failing to negotiate a settlement. Id. ¶ 142. Plaintiff then apparently proceeded pro se and filed a motion in August 2012 seeking a multitude of orders from Judge DeLorenzo. Id. ¶ 145. Judge DeLorenzo denied Plaintiff's requests on October 18, 2012, and granted Mr. Crane temporary custody of the Children on December 24, 2012. Id. ¶¶ 146, 148. Plaintiff then filed an application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on January 4, 2013. Id. ¶ 150. Judge DeLorenzo granted the TRO, but after a February 2013 hearing, he declined to enter a final restraining order. Id. ¶¶ 151, 153. Plaintiff then filed yet another round of motions seeking various forms of relief, all of which were denied by Judge DeLorenzo on May 10, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 155-57.

Shortly thereafter, the case was transferred to Defendant Judge Gerald C. Escala, apparently to preside over the custody trial between Plaintiff and Crane, which began on June 4,2013. Id. ¶¶ 36, 153, 157, 162. Plaintiff claims that her trial attorney, Defendant Alexandra Stremler, Esq., informed Plaintiff on the morning of June 4 that she was "backing out of the trial." Id. ¶ 164. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Escala permitted Stremler to withdraw after conferring with Stremler, Van Aulen, and Defendant Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol, the Presiding Judge for Bergen County Family Court.³ Id. ¶¶ 38, 165. Judge Escala then allegedly forced Plaintiff to proceed with the trial pro se and without an adjournment. Id. ¶ 165. Plaintiff levels numerous allegations of misconduct on the part of Judge Escala and others, essentially claiming that the custody trial was a sham proceeding. See id. ¶¶ 167-80. Plaintiff claims that attorneys Van Aulen and Stremler conspired with Judges DeLorenzo, Escala, and Mizdol to sabotage Plaintiff's case and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and judicial canons in the process. Id. ¶¶ 161, 169. Plaintiff also takes issue with a number of Judge Escala's rulings during the trial, alleging that they violated Plaintiff's right to due process. Id. ¶ 172.

For example, Plaintiff focuses specifically on Defendant Dr. Judith Brown Greif's role in the trial. Dr. Greif is a social worker and custody evaluator who testified during the custody trial on behalf of Mr. Crane. Id. ¶¶ 53, 173, 194. Plaintiff claims that Judge Escala had a longtime friendship with Dr. Greif which he failed to disclose. Id. ¶ 173. Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Escala improperly favored Dr. Greif's "biased report." Id. ¶ 175. Plaintiff's allegations of impropriety stem from her view that Dr. Greif is a misogynist and a proponent of a scientifically unsupported theory called "Parental Alienation Syndrome." Id. ¶ 195. Plaintiff commentsextensively on Dr. Greif's reputation and claims that Dr. Greif profits from family turmoil, endangers children, and is corrupt, biased, and unethical.⁴ See id. ¶¶ 196-202.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Escala should have credited the opinion of Defendant Bergen Family Center ("BFC") rather than that of Dr. Greif. Id. ¶ 175. Plaintiff states that Judge Escala should have considered the Children's preference, which allegedly was "to live with their mother." Id. ¶ 176. Plaintiff further concludes that Judge Escala's failure to recognize her status as a domestic violence victim demonstrated Judge Escala's "blatant lack of seriousness" and rendered Judge Escala himself an abuser. Id. ¶¶ 178-79. Plaintiff claims that Judges DeLorenzo and Escala therefore "failed to protect children from domestic violence." Id. ¶ 180. As stated previously, Judge Escala entered judgment after the trial on August 30, 2013, awarding legal and physical custody of the Children to Mr. Crane. Id. ¶ 87.

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a complaint sometime during the fall of 2013 against Judge Escala with Defendant Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (the "ACJC") in which she alleged judicial misconduct as described above. Id. ¶¶ 64, 266. The ACJC subsequently found no...