SHAFFER v. GALLUB

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order, defendant shall file a supplemental certification. ORDERED that plaintiff may file a response to both of defendant's certifications within 14 days after defendant has filed his supplemental certifications, etc.. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/28/2012. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SHERI SHAFFER,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL NO. 11-6182(NLH)(AMD)
v.
CHARLES GALLUB,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

APPEARANCES:
MARK S. KANCHER
OTHE KANCHER LAW FIRM, LLC
GROVE PROFESSIONAL CENTER
100 GROVE STREET
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033
On behalf of plaintiff
ROBERT N. AGRE
THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT N. AGRE
4 KINGS HIGHWAY EAST
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033
On behalf of defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, this Court having ordered defendant to file a
certification attesting to his state of citizenship so that the
Court could determine whether diversity of citizenship exits
between the parties to support jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (see Docket No. 11); and
Defendant having filed his certification, wherein he supports
his contention that he is a citizen of the state of New Jersey,
which is also plaintiff’s state of citizenship, by attaching
numerous documents; and

Plaintiff now renewing her request for limited jurisdictional
discovery to challenge defendant’s attestations of New Jersey
citizenship; and
The Court having reviewed defendant’s submission; and
The Court finding that even though defendant rents a home in
Brigantine, New Jersey and maintains a New Jersey driver’s licence,
most documents he provides to support his New Jersey citizenship
reflect his Bellmawr, New Jersey business address, including the
address on his driver’s licence, car registration, car insurance,
cellular phone, credit card statements, bank account, health
insurance, and income tax returns;1 and
The Court further finding that even though defendant contends
that his ownership of a home in Lower Merion Township,
Pennsylvania, was an investment property where his girlfriend and
her children reside, and in which he no longer has an interest,
plaintiff had previously provided other evidence in support of
defendant’s Pennsylvania citizenship; and
The Court further finding that defendant claims that “he is

1

Even though it is clear that defendant is not domiciled at
his business address, and that a business address, by itself,
would be insufficient to establish citizenship, defendant’s
rental home in New Jersey, along with numerous personal and
governmental documents reflecting a New Jersey location, may be
sufficient to show “his true, fixed and permanent home and place
of habitation, . . . the place to which, whenever he is absent,
he has the intention of returning.” McCann v. Newman Irrevocable
Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286-87 (3d Cir. 2006). The Court, however,
will make no finding on this issue until after plaintiff has had
the opportunity to respond to defendant’s certification, and if
necessary after any jurisdictional discovery.
2

not currently registered to vote,” but defendant does not certify
whether and where he has voted in the past; but
The Court declining to grant plaintiff’s renewed request for
jurisdictional discovery at this time because it is unclear what
other information plaintiff believes she will uncover to assist in
the establishment of defendant’s citizenship, see Eurofins Pharma
US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir.
2010) (“A plaintiff may not, however, undertake a fishing
expedition based only upon bare allegations, under the guise of
jurisdictional discovery.”); but
The Court directing defendant to file a supplemental
certification attesting to: (1) whether he has been registered to
vote in the past 10 years, and if so, (2) in what state and at what
time, and (3) whether and when he voted during that time period;
and; and
The Court directing defendant to file a supplemental
certification attesting to: (1) whether he or his business
maintains an EZ-Pass account, and if so, (2) a full statement of
such account or accounts for the past 12 months; and
The Court allowing plaintiff the opportunity to respond to
both of defendant’s certifications;2

2

The Court notes that since the filing of plaintiff’s case,
which concerns plaintiff’s claims that defendant has failed to
pay on an agreement in which defendant agreed to make child
support payments to plaintiff on behalf of plaintiff’s ex-husband
in the event that plaintiff’s ex-husband failed to make those
payments himself, defendant has filed a case in New Jersey
3

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY on this 28th

day of December , 2012

ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order,
defendant shall file a supplemental certification attesting to his
voting registration and record, and his EZ-Pass records, if any
exist, as directed above; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff may file a response to both of
defendant’s certifications within 14 days after defendant has filed
his supplemental certifications; and it is further
ORDERED that after the Court reviews the parties’ supplemental
submissions, the Court will issue an Order informing the parties of
its findings or direct such further relief or discovery deemed
appropriate.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

Superior Court, Chancery Division, seeking to be equitably
relieved from that agreement. Defendant is also appealing the
Family Court’s denial of his application to intervene in the
action between plaintiff and her former husband so that the
validity of the agreement could be contested in that forum.
Although the Court is granting plaintiff leave to respond to
defendant’s certification and ordering additional disclosures,
even if diversity of citizenship is established it is
questionable whether this case belongs in this Court when
considering the domestic relations exception doctrine and Younger
and Colorado River abstention doctrines. The Court will consider
an dismissal based on abstention doctrines only after
establishing this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
4