NEWARK, NJ – A federal magistrate judge has ruled on a motion to amend a lawsuit involving a contentious divorce dispute that spilled into civil court, with allegations of electronic surveillance, unauthorized access to private communications, and improper data sharing.
In an opinion issued Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams of the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part a motion by plaintiff Matthew Verzi to file an amended complaint in his case against Zubie Amin, Palak Amin, Cyber Investigations, LLC, and David Murphy.
The court noted that none of the defendants opposed the motion.
Verzi originally filed his complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey on January 10, alleging that his ex-wife, Zubie Amin, and her brother, Palak Amin, accessed his private phone and email accounts during their divorce proceedings. The case was later removed to federal court on February 14.
According to court documents, Verzi claims that Zubie and Palak enlisted Cyber Investigations, LLC and its alleged principal, David Murphy, to conduct surveillance and that they shared his private messages and emails with the firm during the litigation.
Dispute over service and new defendants
Records show that Verzi had successfully served both Zubie and Palak, who filed responses, but had difficulty serving Murphy and Cyber Investigations.
Murphy, listed as one of three principals on Cyber’s website, was eventually contacted by Verzi’s attorney via email at njcyberpi@gmail.com — the same email address listed on Cyber’s business site. Murphy responded, denying ownership of the company but using a signature block identical to the one shown on Cyber’s page and his other firm, Murphy Detective Agency, Inc. (MDA).
After several unsuccessful attempts to serve Murphy and Cyber, Verzi filed a motion seeking court approval for alternate service via email and certified mail. By late May, attorney Peter Till entered an appearance on Murphy’s behalf, though Murphy has not yet filed a formal answer.
Judge Adams denied alternate service on Murphy as moot but left the motion open regarding Cyber, ruling that Verzi had not yet attempted to serve the company’s registered agent or other principals.
Amendment adds new claims and parties
In the latest ruling, Verzi sought permission to amend his complaint to add five new causes of action and two new defendants — Murphy Detective Agency, Inc. and Desiree Lemieux.
Judge Adams reviewed the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which allows courts to grant amendments “freely when justice so requires.” She noted that courts may deny amendments only in cases involving undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility.
While the full opinion details which claims were approved or denied, the judge ultimately granted the motion in part and denied it in part without prejudice, allowing some but not all proposed amendments to proceed.
Background in domestic litigation
The case stems from Verzi’s divorce proceedings, during which he alleges that his former spouse and her associates unlawfully obtained and shared his private data. The federal complaint now includes claims related to electronic privacy violations, civil conspiracy, and emotional distress.
The court will issue further orders governing service on the new parties and responses from the existing defendants.