Czymmek v. Fenstermaker

Background

Martha Czymmek and Scott Fenstermaker are the daughter and son of Lloyd Fenstermaker, who died in 2018. A Connecticut Superior Court judgment required Fenstermaker to pay Czymmek $93,775.77 in attorneys’ fees arising from litigation about their father’s estate. Fenstermaker appealed the judgment and the fee award, but the Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed his appeal and later denied reconsideration.

Czymmek attempted to domesticate the Connecticut judgment in New York under Article 54 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Domestication is the process for making a judgment from another state enforceable in New York. Fenstermaker removed that proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions—court orders that would block enforcement of the Connecticut judgment.

Arguments

Czymmek moved to remand the matter to New York state court, moved in the alternative to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and requested attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the removal. She argued that the attempted removal was improper and that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the Connecticut judgment.

Fenstermaker argued that the Connecticut Superior Court lacked authority to award attorneys’ fees after determining that it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying probate appeal. He also argued that the fee award was unreasonable and that the Connecticut courts violated his due-process rights by denying his appeal without a hearing or oral argument. He sought injunctions preventing enforcement of the judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the proceeding had to be remanded for two related reasons. First, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts generally lack authority to review and reject state-court judgments. The court found that Fenstermaker had lost in state court, complained of injuries caused by the Connecticut judgment, sought federal review and reversal of that judgment, and was challenging a judgment entered before the federal proceeding began.

Second, the court held that the New York domestication proceeding was not a removable “civil action.” Under the New York procedure, domestication of a foreign judgment is a ministerial process that gives the judgment the same effect as a New York judgment and permits enforcement against assets in New York. It did not involve new parties, new facts, or new legal issues. The court therefore characterized it as an ancillary or supplemental proceeding—one connected to enforcement of the existing Connecticut judgment—not an independent lawsuit removable under the federal removal statute.

The court also exercised its discretion to award Czymmek attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It found that Fenstermaker’s removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis, was a frivolous effort to avoid enforcement of the judgment, and sought to delay execution of the judgment and make Czymmek incur additional expenses. The opinion did not set the amount of fees and costs; it directed Czymmek to submit a request.

Disposition

Czymmek’s motion to remand enforcement of the Connecticut judgment was granted. Her motion for attorneys’ fees was granted. Her motion to dismiss was denied as moot. Fenstermaker’s motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions was denied as moot. The action was remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The federal case was kept open until a judgment granting attorneys’ fees was entered.