![]() ![]() Accordingly, he ordered both Malhan and his putative ex-wife to work with a courtappointed psychologist to evaluate how the children might be adversely impacted by publicity relating to their parents’ dispute. Judge Kessler stated that he would want to “narrowly tailor” any gag order, Plaintiff’s App’x 95, but that the record of the proceedings at that point were insufficient to allow him to do so. Both challenges were eventually abandoned.2 In 2015, after Judge Sivilli recused herself, her successor, Judge Donald Kessler, held a hearing to evaluate the appropriateness of Judge Sivilli’s gag order. Subsequently, in separate federal cases not directly relevant to the case on appeal here, two members of the media challenged Judge Sivilli’s order on First Amendment right-ofaccess grounds. Then-presiding Judge Nancy Sivilli granted the requested order, which broadly prohibited Malhan and his putative ex-wife from discussing the proceeding online or with the press. 1 2 I Amid long-running and acrimonious divorce and child custody proceedings, Malhan’s putative ex-wife sought a gag order from the family court to protect her and Malhan’s minor children from potentially damaging public scrutiny. 2009) (“We may affirm the District Court on any grounds supported by the record.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ![]() * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. ![]() We will affirm dismissal of Malhan’s claim as precluded under the doctrine of res judicata.1 As for Argen, because the Younger doctrine does not extend to him, we will vacate dismissal of his claim and remand it for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Surender Malhan, a party to a New Jersey family court proceeding, and Paul Argen, a member of the media who is prevented by a 2015 family court gag order from interviewing Malhan concerning certain aspects of the proceeding, appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their challenges to the gag order on Younger abstention grounds. McGuire Office of Attorney General of New Jersey Division of Law 25 Market Street Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Counsel for Appellees _ OPINION* _ SMITH, Circuit Judge. Clark Suite 1N 10 Huron Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Counsel for Appellants Brett J. ![]() Wigenton _ Argued JBefore: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Filed August 16, 2022) Paul A. 2-18-cv-00963 District Judge: Honorable Susan D. DAVID KATZ _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 21-2571 _ PAUL ARGEN SURENDER MALHAN, Appellants v. foot facility, it is clear that Argen is dedicated to the future of digital dentistry and has positioned themselves for continued advancement and success.NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. foot building in San Diego, CA.Ĭoupled with their existing 40,000 sq. This rapid growth has fueled expansion and the purchase of a new 80,000 sq. Today, Argen Digital has grown to over 100 printing and milling machines running 24 hours per day, 6 days per week serviced by over 150 people.Īrgen’s innovative digital services provide the most complete digital solutions to dental laboratories of all sizes.Īrgen offers Selective Laser Melted (SLM) copings in high noble, noble and non-precious, Digital Precious Metals in 20 ofĪrgen’s Most Popular Alloys, Argen®Mill milled gold crowns, SLM Captek, ArgenIS Custom Abutments, ArgenZ Zirconia discs and milled units, Digital Models, ArgenPMMA Temps, ArgenWAX and Digital Scanners. Today, Argen’s 40,000 square foot facility houses alloy production, Argen Refining, Zirconia Manufacturing and Argen Digital. By 2010, Anton had positioned the company to start fully integrating into digital and by 2011 Argen officially opened the digital outsourcing center – Argen Digital. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |