Harwood Lloyd Secures Dismissal With Prejudice in Novel Litigation Privilege Case Arising From Rabbinical Arbitration
Harwood Lloyd partner Kevin J. Conyngham and senior associate Erik Kallhovd secured a complete dismissal with prejudice for the firm’s client in a defamation action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County. The case raised a question that New Jersey courts have not squarely addressed: whether the litigation privilege, which immunizes statements made in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, extends to a binding matrimonial arbitration conducted before a rabbinical tribunal under Jewish law. The plaintiff — not even a party to that arbitration — sued the firm’s client for slander, emotional distress, and fraud over statements made by the client’s advocate in connection with the arbitration proceeding (and related matrimonial litigation).
Conyngham and Kallhovd built the motion around a binary the plaintiff could not escape. If the arbitration was quasi-judicial — and the governing agreement gave the arbitrator the full powers of a secular matrimonial arbitrator, with an award confirmable in Superior Court — every statement was absolutely privileged under Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207 (1995). If instead the tribunal’s religious character placed it outside the privilege, the court could not adjudicate the claims without interpreting religious doctrine, requiring abstention under the Establishment Clause. Independently, the motion sought dismissal because the amended complaint identified no statement by the firm’s client and no theory for holding him liable for his advocate’s words.
Having already amended once without curing those defects — and having twice pleaded facts that placed the statements squarely inside the litigation privilege — the plaintiff could not save his claims. The court agreed that the privilege applied and dismissed the matter with prejudice—a disposition rarely granted on a pre-answer motion, where pleadings are ordinarily read with liberality and leave to re-plead is freely given. The decision offers meaningful protection to parties and advocates who resolve disputes in faith-based arbitration.
