D'Amore v. D'Amore

In D'Amore v. D'Amore, 186 N.J. Super. 525, 529, 453 A.2d 251 (App.Div.1982), the plaintiff-former wife moved post-judgment to compel the defendant to produce certain documents. The defendant responded by asserting that the motion was made simply to harass him, and therefore moved to enjoin the plaintiff from making any future motions. Ibid. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, "the order providing that 'plaintiff be and she is hereby barred and prohibited from filing any further harassing motions against defendant in the future.'" Ibid. On appeal, the Court held that the injunction was improper, notwithstanding the fact that "there is, of course, no question of the power of the court to enjoin prospective harassing litigation." Id. at 530, 453 A.2d 251. However, "that power must be exercised consistently with the fundamental right of the public to access to the courts in order to secure adjudication of claims on their merits." Ibid. In so stating, the Court recognized only "two circumstantial categories of enjoinable litigation": The first includes attempts to litigate claims despite their preclusion by such legal doctrines as res judicata. The second includes claims which are already pending or are about to be instituted in another forum whose jurisdiction thereover is superior or prior. Ibid. Therefore, the Court held that "a nonspecific and nondiscrete injunction against prospective litigation generally is patently insustainable." Ibid.