MANDIGORA v. THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS, INC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GRANT MANDIGORA and NEZILE

MTHEMBU, Civil Action No. 25-14682

Plaintiffs,

OPINION AND ORDER

v. DISMISSING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND TERMINATING CASE

THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS,

INC., DR. GLADIBEL MEDINA, and THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

August 19, 2025

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Defendants.

SEMPER, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Grant Mandigora and Nezile

Mthembu’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion” or “Mot.”) seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants the American Board of Pediatrics, Inc.

(“ABP”), Dr. Gladibel Medina (“Dr. Medina”), and the United States Department of Health and

Human Services (“DHHS”). The Court has decided this motion upon Plaintiffs’ submissions,

without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Rule 78.1. For

the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED and this case is TERMINATED.

WHEREAS on August 15, 2025, Plaintiffs, parents of a minor child referred to as “A.M.”

in their filings, filed the instant Motion, as well as a Complaint and attendant documents, seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants related to a state child welfare proceeding in

which the State of New Jersey has separated the child from the parents. (See generally Mot.; see

also Complaint, “Compl.”) Specifically, Plaintiffs ask this Court to: (1) enjoin ABP and Dr.

Medina “from offering, relying upon, or permitting reliance upon Dr. Medina’s ‘Medical Child

Abuse’ opinions or her American Board of Pediatrics certification in any proceedings affecting

Plaintiffs,” and prohibit the use of Dr. Medina’s ABP credentials “to support potentially

unconstitutional state action without lawful evidentiary review;” (2) enjoin DHHS and its

subordinate organization the Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”) “from continuing

to approve or disburse Title IV-B or IV-E funds to the State of New Jersey for actions that fail to

meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15), 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), and 45 C.F.R. §§

1356.21(b)(2), 1356.60(c)(3), including removal without adjudicated findings of abuse or neglect,

unlawful reunification conditions, and missed permanency deadlines;” and (3) enjoin “the

enforcement or implementation of any order, policy, or practice that separates Plaintiffs from their

minor child absent adjudicated findings of abuse or neglect made in compliance with federal law,

including 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) and 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21;” (Mot. at 23-24) and

WHEREAS Plaintiffs allege that on August 17, 2024, the New Jersey Division of Child

Protection and Permanency (“DCPP”) removed the child from Plaintiffs’ custody without an

adjudicated finding of abuse or neglect, in violation of federal regulations and law. (Id. at 8.)

Plaintiffs further allege that in June 2025, about ten months after the initial separation, Dr. Medina

entered the case as a state-contracted Child Abuse Pediatrician and diagnosed the child with

“Medical Child Abuse,” a condition which Plaintiffs claim was not validly diagnosed. (Id.)

Plaintiffs also allege that the DCPP has used this diagnosis as a basis to continue the separation of

the child from the parents. (Id.); and

WHEREAS Plaintiffs are engaged in ongoing litigation in New Jersey Family Court. (See

generally Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exs. D, E, J, K, L.) Plaintiffs

assert, without support, that New Jersey Family Court is unable to adequately address their federal

claims; and

WHEREAS injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in

limited circumstances.” Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir.

2004). The Court may grant an injunction only if a party shows: (1) a likelihood of success on the

merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting

preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the

public interest favors such relief. Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Management,

LLC, 793 F.3d 313, 318 (3d Cir. 2015). A party must produce sufficient evidence of all four

factors, and the Court must weigh them prior to granting injunctive relief. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v.

Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994). However, “a movant for

preliminary equitable relief must meet the threshold for the first two ‘most critical’ factors: it must

demonstrate that it can win on the merits (which requires a showing significantly better than

negligible but not necessarily more likely than not) and that it is more likely than not to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. If these gateway factors are met, a court then

considers the remaining two factors and determines in its sound discretion if all four factors, taken

together, balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief.” Riley v. Harrisburg, 858

F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017); and

WHEREAS federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. Art. III. “In

certain circumstances, district courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a particular

claim where resolution of that claim in federal court would offend principles of comity by

interfering with an ongoing state proceeding.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir.

2010); and

WHEREAS in this case, the Court is bound to abstain from issuing a ruling that would

interfere with the underlying state case by the doctrine articulate by the Supreme Court in Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger abstention is appropriate where, as here: “(1) there are

ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal

claims.” Wattie-Bey v. Att'y Gen.'s Off., 424 F. App’x 95, 97 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirming the district

court’s dismissal of the action under Younger abstention in a case in which parents of a minor child

sought prospective injunctive and declaratory relief from a federal court that would have interfered

with underlying state proceeding). Here, Plaintiffs are currently engaged in ongoing state

proceedings in New Jersey Family Court. “Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.”

Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). Plaintiffs assert that the New Jersey state courts are

unable to address their federal claims, but in support of this assertion they offer evidence that the

state courts have heard and denied their interlocutory appeals. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-18.) Plaintiffs also

assert that they have been subjected to bias in the state court proceedings, but they do not point the

Court to any alleged conduct or omission that could suggest the actual presence of bias. (Compl.

¶ 19.) On this thin record, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction over this case and interfere with

the functions of the New Jersey state government. The state appellate process remains open to

Plaintiffs should they wish to challenge any order or finding of the New Jersey Family Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED and

this this action is hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED effective today, August 19,

2025. The Clerk is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jamel K. Semper .

HON. JAMEL K. SEMPER

United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk

cc: Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.

Parties