Martin Greenblatt, et al v. Howard Klein

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6.

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1753
___________
MARTIN GREENBLATT;
MARTHA GREENBLATT,
Appellants
v.
HOWARD KLEIN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-12-cv-04575)
District Judge: Honorable Esther Salas
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 1, 2015
Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 14, 2015)
___________
OPINION*
___________

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

PER CURIAM
Martin and Martha Greenblatt, husband and wife, appeal from an order of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which granted the
Defendant’s summary judgment motion. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Because the parties are familiar with the history and facts of the case, we will
recount the events in summary fashion. The Greenblatts’ amended complaint asserted
constitutional and state law claims against Howard Klein, who was the Construction
Code Official and Building Sub-Code Official for the Borough of North Plainfield,
Somerset County, New Jersey, during the period relevant to the complaint. The
Greenblatts’ claims stemmed from two incidents when Klein issued a Notice of Violation
and Order to Terminate (“NOVOT”) for violations he observed at property owned by
Martha Greenblatt and managed by Martin Greenblatt. The first NOVOT was served on
the Greenblatts for “construction of retaining wall without permits,” because the
Greenblatts had erected a cinder block wall on their property without obtaining a permit
(the Greenblatts asserted that it was a fence rather than a wall, and that it was compliant
with height requirements). The second was served on them for “use of a rear portion of
the building as a place of worship without permits or certificate of occupancy.” The
Greenblatts admitted that they had rented the area to a pastor, but argued that he was
simply storing furniture in the space, and that Klein had illegally entered the building.
The Greenblatts appealed the NOVOTs to the Somerset County Construction
Board of Appeals (SCCOBA), but the Board upheld the NOVOTs and ordered Martha
Greenblatt to pay $4000 in fines. The Greenblatts filed suit in the Superior Court of New
2

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, against Klein and others. That court affirmed
the SCCOBA’s decision, holding that the Greenblatts did not have standing to raise a
Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of the church portion of the building, as
the property had been rented to a third-party tenant, the Greenblatts did not occupy the
property, and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to that portion of the
property. The New Jersey court also held that the SCCOBA’s decision to uphold the
NOVOTs was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
In the meantime, the Greenblatts filed the federal complaint at issue here, raising
five claims: (1) harassment; (2) violation of the Fourth Amendment; (3) violation of the
exclusionary rule; (4) violation of the Takings Doctrine; and (5) violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 for fraud and false statements. Klein filed a motion for summary judgment. The
Greenblatts opposed the motion and cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. The
District Court granted Klein’s motion, holding that: (1) the Fourth Amendment claim
and the related exclusionary rule claim were precluded by the Superior Court’s decision;
(2) the Greenblatts had not identified any federal cause of action for harassment, and the
claim would fail if construed as a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress; (3) the Takings claim was without merit; and (4) there is no private right of
action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a criminal statute. The Greenblatts timely
appealed.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the order
granting summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as the District Court. See
Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 385 (3d Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate
3

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 4

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

when the movant demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The District Court properly granted summary judgment as to the Fourth
Amendment claims of illegal entry and search of the property. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738,
a federal court is required to give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that
those judgments would be given in that state’s own courts.1 Kremer v. Chem. Constr.
Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982). In New Jersey, issue preclusion is appropriately
invoked when: (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the
issue was actually litigated in a prior proceeding; (3) the prior court issued a final
judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior
judgment; and (5) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted was a party or in
privity with a party to the earlier proceeding. Del. River Port Auth. v. Fraternal Order of
Police, 290 F.3d 567, 573 (3d Cir. 2002). Additionally, the prior proceedings must have
satisfied the minimum procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause, which
requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pa.
Public Utility Comm’n, 767 F.3d 335, 351 n.22 (3d Cir. 2014).
Here, the Greenblatts seek to raise the same Fourth Amendment claims that they
raised (and had a full opportunity to litigate) in state court. The state court determined
that the Greenblatts lacked standing to raise the claim. The claim was integral to the state

1

Section 1738 has long been understood to encompass the doctrine of issue
preclusion. San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 336
(2005).
4

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 5

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

court decision, and Klein was a defendant in the prior action. Thus, the Greenblatts were
precluded from relitigating the Fourth Amendment claims against Klein in the federal
court. And because the Greenblatts lost on the Fourth Amendment claims, there could be
no meritorious exclusionary rule claims.
Next, we agree with the District Court that the Greenblatts failed to identify any
federal or state cause of action for “harassment.” We further agree that to the extent the
complaint could be construed as raising a claim of intentional infliction of emotional
stress, such a claim would fail, as the Greenblatts did not allege any physical injury or
serious psychological damage from Klein’s alleged actions. See, e.g., Taylor v. Metzger,
706 A.2d 685, 696 (N.J. 1998) (cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress requires that emotional distress suffered by plaintiff was so severe that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure it).
As for the Takings claim, we agree that the claim is without merit.2 As the state
did not directly appropriate the Greenblatts’ property, the District Court properly
construed the Greenblatts’ claim as a regulatory taking claim, see Am. Express Travel
Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 370-71 (3d Cir. 2012); however,
the Court noted that the Greenblatts had not alleged the existence of any government
regulation that gave rise to the claim. Instead, they argued that Klein’s harassment

2

Further, it appears that any Takings Clause claim was unripe, as it does not
appear that the Greenblatts availed themselves of New Jersey’s procedures for obtaining
compensation pursuant to the Eminent Domain Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. § 20:3-1 et seq.
See also Williamson Cty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City,
473 U.S. 172, 194-95 (1985).
5

Case: 15-1753

Document: 003112154245

Page: 6

Date Filed: 12/14/2015

diverted them from seeking rental income, and pressured them to sell the property. But
as the District Court noted, the Greenblatts did not allege total economic deprivation, as
they were still able to rent the property to a variety of tenants during the period at issue.
See Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[A] regulatory taking
occurs only when the government’s action deprives a landowner of all economically
viable uses of his or her property.”) (citing Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003,
1019 (1992). The District Court correctly determined that the Greenblatts were in a
position to know about applicable building codes and regulations when they bought the
property, and that the character of the enforcement action here did not warrant any
compensation to them. Thus, the Greenblatts did not show that any of Klein’s actions
constituted a “taking” as opposed to a legitimate enforcement of Borough or County laws
and regulations.
Finally, we agree that there is no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
And to the extent the Greenblatts sought to raise a state-law civil claim for fraud, that
claim is precluded because the claim is simply an attempt to relitigate the facts
underlying the New Jersey court’s decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

6