A New Jersey federal judge on Monday tossed a proposed class action
filed on behalf of convicted drunk drivers accusing Draeger Safety
Diagnostics Inc. of making inaccurate breath alcohol tester, finding that the suit improperly asked the court to review and
reject state court judgments.
Plaintiffs Bobby Johnson and Edwin Aguaiza were arrested for drunk
driving in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and challenged the accuracy of
the BAC results obtained by police using Draeger's Alcotest 7110 machine
after their convictions. They allege the company designed the machine
with no way to ensure accuracy and that executives lied about the
machine's capabilities.
U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares found Johnson and Aguaiza's lawsuit
violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars suits if the claim was
litigated in state court prior to the filing of the federal action or if
the claim is "inextricably intertwined" with the state court's
adjudication, meaning that federal relief can only be predicated upon a
conviction that the state court was wrong.
Judge Linares said in the context of this case, the plaintiffs asked the
court to determine, whether the Alcotest 7110 contains a design defect
under the New Jersey Product Liability Act and whether Draeger’s vice
president falsely testified that the Alcotest was a scientifically
reliable device in the context of the New Jersey Supreme Court case that
ultimately found the devices to be reliable.
"The New Jersey Supreme Court has already concluded that the Alcotest
was — and remains — 'scientifically reliable' for the purpose for which
it was designed — to test breath samples to determine blood-alcohol
concentration," the judge said. "Thus, a finding by this court that the
Alcotest contains a defect for the purpose for which it was designed
would effectively prevent the enforcement of the state court's orders
upon which plaintiffs’ criminal convictions were based."
He said the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not allow a plaintiff to seek
relief that, if granted, would prevent a state court from enforcing its
orders.
The judge also said if he found that Draeger's vice president lied under
oath before the New Jersey Supreme Court, the decision would be
inextricably intertwined with and could render ineffectual the state
court orders upon which the plaintiffs' criminal convictions were based —
including but not limited to the Supreme Court's decision itself.
And the judge found that the alleged erroneous results reported by the
Alcotest, without more, did not cause the injury that plaintiffs have
complained of, namely their "life-changing" choice to plead guilty to
drunk driving, which, in turn, allegedly led to headaches, stomach pains
and mental stress.
"Rather, based on the allegations set forth in the third amended
complaint, it was the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ...
concluding that the Alcotest was, at that point in time, 'scientifically
reliable' and that it generated results that were admissible to prove a
per se violation of [New Jersey law] ... that produced plaintiffs'
'life changing' dilemma," the judge said.
Counsel for Draeger was not immediately available for comment Monday.
"I have reviewed Judge Linares’ decision, and I am considering an appeal
to the Third Circuit. While I have high regard for Judge Linares, I am
concerned that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is being interpreted to limit
my clients’ rights to seek relief under the New Jersey Product
Liability Act. I maintain that the plaintiffs have properly pled a cause
of action," the plaintiffs' attorney Ashton E. Thomas said Monday.
iSweek（http://www.isweek.com/）- Industry sourcing & Wholesale industrial products
没有评论:
发表评论