MOSES SEGAL v. CYNTHIA K. LYNCH

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4501-04T24501-04T2

MOSES SEGAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CYNTHIA K. LYNCH,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________________________

 

Argued January 25, 2006 - Decided February 14, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Parker.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,

Docket No. L-2790-04.

Vijayant Pawar argued the cause for appellant.

Thomas J. Hagner argued the cause for respondent

(Hagner & Zohlman, attorneys; Mr. Hagner, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his defamation complaint "for lack of jurisdiction." Plaintiff asserts that the Law Division has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over defendant and that, at a minimum, he should be allowed "an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery." We affirm the order dismissing the complaint substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Stephen F. Smith, Jr., in his oral opinion of April 1, 2005, relating to personal jurisdiction. We add only that "jurisdictional discovery" is not warranted in this case especially in light of plaintiff's post-complaint January 22, 2005 letter to a Canadian Immigration Officer stating:

Both [of the parties' two] children are citizens of the U.S. While Emily was born in New York City, William is a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born to a U.S. mother. Both have U.S. passports. Thus if Ms[.] Lynch were to return to the U.S., she and the children are admissible as they are U.S. Citizens.

. . . .

Ms. Lynch has many times traveled from Canada to the U.S. to visit her family and upon her return to Canada she may have even misled the various Immigration Officers about the fact that she was for years living continuously in Canada.

. . . .

I firmly believe that the main reason Ms. Lynch wants to stay in Canada is that the money rights in divorce matters in the Canadian courts far exceed the rights she would be entitled to in the U.S. (forum or court shopping). I also believe that if she and the children were to return to the U.S. then the situation would resolve itself quickly and the children could then have the benefit of being brought up by both a father and a mother. If she stays in Canada I fear that the children will never see me again.

. . . .

I see no reason for Ms. Lynch to remain in Canada as;

. . . .

C. She lied to Immigration Officers at Ports of Entry by declaring she was visiting Canada temporarily when in fact it was her intention to remain permanently. She has done this for 9 years.

. . . .

F. As a U.S. citizen she and the children can return to and live in the U.S. They will not suffer undue, undeserved or disproportionate harm. It would also be in the best interests of the children because they would have their father back again.

[Emphasis added.]

 
Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that defendant is a New Jersey resident, as alleged in the complaint.

Affirmed.

The complaint alleges that defendant, the mother of plaintiff's children, "made defamatory statements [about his mental health] to family members and business associates," thereby affecting his reputation and "business dealings."

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4501-04T2

February 14, 2006