![]() Judge Kessler entered the gag order, apparently on a sua sponte basis, even though he suggested that Malhan’s putative ex-wife had not carried her “burden of proof” on the question of whether a gag order was necessary. It read: All parties are hereby restrained and enjoined from speaking with, appearing for an interview, or otherwise discussing any custody information to any reporters, journalists, newscasters or other news media employees or from posting any blogs or information not previously posted or disseminated relating to the children or any custody issue in this case pending a further hearing. 3 To preserve the status quo, and choosing to “err on the side of caution to protect best interest,” id., Judge Kessler entered a 2015 gag order that superseded the one that had been entered by Judge Sivilli. 6, 2016) (granting voluntary dismissal of challenge by Paul Nichols, who had passed away). 1, 2016) (failing to brief the dismissal of Hagberg’s challenge) Nichols v. 19, at 2 (May 9, 2016) (dismissing Karl Hagberg’s challenge because “Judge Sivilli’s gag order ha been ‘largely vacated’”) Allen v. ![]() Accordingly, he ordered both Malhan and his putative ex-wife to work with a courtappointed psychologist to evaluate how the children might be adversely impacted by publicity relating to their parents’ dispute. Judge Kessler stated that he would want to “narrowly tailor” any gag order, Plaintiff’s App’x 95, but that the record of the proceedings at that point were insufficient to allow him to do so. ![]() Both challenges were eventually abandoned.2 In 2015, after Judge Sivilli recused herself, her successor, Judge Donald Kessler, held a hearing to evaluate the appropriateness of Judge Sivilli’s gag order. Subsequently, in separate federal cases not directly relevant to the case on appeal here, two members of the media challenged Judge Sivilli’s order on First Amendment right-ofaccess grounds. Then-presiding Judge Nancy Sivilli granted the requested order, which broadly prohibited Malhan and his putative ex-wife from discussing the proceeding online or with the press. ![]() 1 2 I Amid long-running and acrimonious divorce and child custody proceedings, Malhan’s putative ex-wife sought a gag order from the family court to protect her and Malhan’s minor children from potentially damaging public scrutiny. 2009) (“We may affirm the District Court on any grounds supported by the record.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. We will affirm dismissal of Malhan’s claim as precluded under the doctrine of res judicata.1 As for Argen, because the Younger doctrine does not extend to him, we will vacate dismissal of his claim and remand it for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Surender Malhan, a party to a New Jersey family court proceeding, and Paul Argen, a member of the media who is prevented by a 2015 family court gag order from interviewing Malhan concerning certain aspects of the proceeding, appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their challenges to the gag order on Younger abstention grounds. McGuire Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Division of Law 25 Market Street Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Counsel for Appellees _ OPINION* _ SMITH, Circuit Judge. Clark Suite 1N 10 Huron Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Counsel for Appellants Brett J. Wigenton _ Argued JBefore: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Filed August 16, 2022) Paul A. 2-18-cv-00963 District Judge: Honorable Susan D. DAVID KATZ _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. ![]() 21-2571 _ PAUL ARGEN SURENDER MALHAN, Appellants v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |