NEWARK, NJ – A federal judge has denied a motion by a property developer seeking to reopen its dismissed lawsuit against the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA), ruling that the agency is immune from suit and that any further challenge must go through state appellate courts.
U.S. District Judge William J. Martini issued the decision on January 15, 2026, in 92-94 West 34th Street HCPVI LLC v. New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, No. 25-cv-707. The judge rejected the developer’s request for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, finding no legal or factual basis to disturb his earlier ruling that dismissed the case in November 2025.
The dispute stems from the DCA’s issuance of “Orders to Pay” against the plaintiff — a limited liability company that owns property at 92–94 West 34th Street in Bayonne — in connection with state enforcement actions. The developer argued that those orders violated its constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought damages and injunctive relief.
In its prior decision, the court dismissed the complaint after concluding that the DCA, as a state agency, is protected by sovereign immunity and cannot be sued for monetary damages in federal court. The judge also found that New Jersey’s Appellate Division has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to final administrative agency decisions and that the federal court lacked authority to review or void a related state-court judgment entered against the company.
In its latest filing, the developer asked Judge Martini to reconsider, contending that he misapplied state law and that federal courts should be able to hear constitutional challenges to state agency actions. The company also cited Fourth and Seventh Circuit decisions — Thana v. Board of License Commissioners for Charles County, Maryland and Andrade v. City of Hammond, Indiana — arguing that the availability of state-court appeals should not preclude federal review.
Judge Martini disagreed, noting that New Jersey law explicitly grants the state’s Appellate Division “exclusive jurisdiction” to review final administrative agency actions under Rule 2:2-3(a)(2). The judge cited multiple state and federal precedents, including In re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, 257 N.J. 425 (2024), and Pascucci v. Vagott, 71 N.J. 40 (1976), reaffirming that federal district courts may not second-guess state administrative rulings.
“Because Plaintiff never sought an administrative hearing under N.J.S.A. § 2A:58-10, the Department’s decision became final, and any review thereafter rested with the Appellate Division,” Judge Martini wrote. He rejected the developer’s argument that the statute’s language was merely permissive, emphasizing that New Jersey’s highest court has repeatedly interpreted it as granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
The judge also reaffirmed that the federal court properly invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from reviewing or overturning state-court judgments. Although the doctrine does not apply to executive agency actions, Martini explained that it applies here because the plaintiff explicitly sought to have the DCA’s penalties and the resulting state-court judgment declared void.
“Despite Plaintiff’s claims to the contrary, the proposed amended complaint clearly purports to challenge the Judgment,” the court said, pointing to allegations where the developer asked the court to “vacate or withdraw” the state-entered judgment. Under New Jersey law, Martini noted, once an agency’s final order is docketed as a judgment, it “shall have the same effect as a judgment of the court,” making it subject to Rooker-Feldman’s jurisdictional bar.
The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s reliance on out-of-state precedents as “unpersuasive and inapposite,” emphasizing that New Jersey’s statutory framework differs from those other jurisdictions.
Finding no “intervening change in law,” “newly discovered evidence,” or “clear error of law or fact,” Judge Martini concluded that reconsideration was unwarranted. “The standard for reconsideration is high and reconsideration is to be granted only sparingly,” he wrote, quoting earlier Third Circuit precedent.
With the motion denied, the developer’s federal case remains closed. Any further challenge to the DCA’s enforcement orders must now proceed through New Jersey’s appellate process rather than the federal courts.
Bottom line: The federal court ruled that the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs is shielded by sovereign immunity and that only the state’s Appellate Division can review its final enforcement actions — leaving the property owner without a federal forum to contest the penalties.