The Ngambo Clarification: Rejecting CCPA-Based Nationwide Jurisdiction and Re-affirming RICO’s “Ends-of-Justice” Prerequisite in the Third Circuit

Introduction

Case: Jules Ngambo v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, No. 24-2545, (3d Cir. June 11 2025)
Panel: Circuit Judges Restrepo, Freeman and Nygaard
Disposition: Motions for summary affirmance granted; District Court dismissal affirmed.

Jules Ngambo, aggrieved by adverse rulings in New York matrimonial and child-support litigation and by a separate loss in the Southern District of New York, sued a broad array of defendants—including state judges, federal judges, a private attorney, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (NYSDTF), and its commissioner—in the District of New Jersey. He alleged that they formed a conspiracy violating the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s (CCPA) garnishment provisions and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, judicial immunity, and failure to state a claim.

On appeal, three defendants moved for summary affirmance under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The Court of Appeals agreed that the appeal posed “no substantial question” and affirmed the dismissal as to all appellees. Although labelled “not precedential,” the opinion significantly clarifies two recurrent procedural issues:

The CCPA does not supply nationwide service of process or independent personal-jurisdiction authority.
RICO’s nationwide service of process is unavailable unless a court in the forum has personal jurisdiction over at least one defendant and the “ends of justice” require joinder of the rest.

Summary of the Judgment

After conducting de novo review, the Third Circuit held:

No Personal Jurisdiction (Individual Capacities) – Ngambo failed to make a prima facie showing that any defendant was domiciled in New Jersey or had minimum contacts with the state. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) therefore provided no hook for jurisdiction.
Statutory Bases Rejected – The CCPA contains no nationwide service provision; RICO’s does not apply absent jurisdiction over one defendant plus the “ends-of-justice” showing; and Rule 4(k)(2) was unavailable because defendants were plainly amenable to suit in New York.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity (Official Capacities) – Claims against NYSDTF, state judges, and Commissioner Hiller in their official capacities were barred. The Ex parte Young exception did not help because the only requested injunctive relief was directed at the agency, not an individual officer within the court’s jurisdiction.
Judicial Immunity – All claims against state and federal judges failed because the alleged misconduct comprised judicial acts within the respective courts’ jurisdiction.

Finding these grounds dispositive, the panel did not reach the Rule-12(b)(6) analysis regarding the substantive CCPA and RICO claims.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Fischer v. FedEx Corp., 42 F.4th 366 (3d Cir. 2022)
Reiterated that Rule 4(k)(1)(A) incorporates the forum state’s long-arm statute, which in New Jersey extends to constitutional limits. The panel quoted Fischer extensively to frame the personal-jurisdiction inquiry.
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004)
Cited for the plaintiff’s burden to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction when no evidentiary hearing is held.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011)
Provided the modern dichotomy between general and specific jurisdiction, invoked to show that none of the defendants were “at home” in New Jersey.
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, 948 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2020)
Established that RICO’s nationwide service of process applies only if the court has personal jurisdiction over at least one defendant and justice so requires. The panel applied Laurel Gardens to dismantle Ngambo’s RICO argument.
Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir. 2006)
Restated the absolute nature of judicial immunity; the panel relied on Azubuko to summarily dismiss claims against all judges.
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bell Atl.–Pa., 271 F.3d 491 (3d Cir. 2001)
Quoted regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity and the narrow Ex parte Young exception.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

The panel’s reasoning unfolded in three disciplined steps:

Rule 4(k)(1)(A) and Minimum Contacts
Because the defendants were served in a New Jersey action, personal jurisdiction depended on whether New Jersey courts could reach them. No defendant was domiciled in New Jersey; all alleged conduct occurred in New York. Mere injury felt in New Jersey (plaintiff’s residence) is insufficient under Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014). Therefore, both general and specific jurisdiction were absent.
Statutory Shortcuts Denied
• The CCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1673) regulates wage garnishments but says nothing about personal jurisdiction or service of process.
• RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1965) permits nationwide service, yet Laurel Gardens requires a preliminary foothold—personal jurisdiction over one defendant and a showing that including the others is necessary for justice. Ngambo alleged neither.
• Rule 4(k)(2) (“federal long-arm”) did not apply because the defendants were clearly subject to New York courts.
Immunities Foreclose Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
After ruling out personal jurisdiction for individuals, the court turned to sovereign and judicial immunities to dispose of the remaining official-capacity and judge-defendants. The panel stressed that claims for injunctions against agencies are quintessentially barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that judicial acts are absolutely immune unless performed in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”—a bar Ngambo could not clear.

C. Potential Impact

Although designated “not precedential,” Third Circuit practitioners routinely cite such opinions for their persuasive weight, especially on procedural questions. The opinion’s key impacts include:

Clarifying the CCPA’s procedural reach. Litigants sometimes assume federal statutes imply nationwide service; Ngambo cautions that the CCPA does not.
Re-emphasizing limits of RICO jurisdiction. Plaintiffs often invoke civil RICO to bootstrap nationwide jurisdiction. The panel reaffirms that Laurel Gardens continues to block such attempts absent the prerequisite foothold.
Affirming robust judicial immunity. By swiftly disposing of conspiracy allegations against state and federal judges, the court strengthens the shield that allows judges to rule without fear of personal liability.
Educative value for pro se litigants. The decision demonstrates the procedural hurdles that doom suits filed in an inconvenient forum against immune parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction: The power of a court to make binding decisions about a defendant. It can be “general” (any claim, if the person is essentially at home in the state) or “specific” (claims arising from the defendant’s contacts with the state).
Rule 4(k)(1)(A): Federal rule tying a federal court’s reach to that of the state where it sits. If the state court cannot exercise jurisdiction, neither can the federal court (unless another federal statute says otherwise).
RICO Nationwide Service of Process: Allows defendants to be served anywhere in the country if the court has jurisdiction over one defendant and the “ends of justice” require bringing in the rest. It is not a free-standing license to sue everyone everywhere.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Bars private lawsuits in federal court against a state or its agencies unless the state consents or Congress unequivocally abrogates the immunity.
Judicial Immunity: Absolute protection judges enjoy for acts performed in their judicial capacity, even if those acts are alleged to be malicious or erroneous.
Summary Affirmance: A procedural mechanism allowing an appellate court to dispose of an appeal without full briefing or oral argument when the outcome is clear.

Conclusion

Ngambo v. NYSDTF underscores the unforgiving nature of jurisdictional and immunity doctrines. The Third Circuit, while issuing a non-precedential opinion, crystallizes two key propositions: (1) the CCPA grants no jurisdictional shortcut, and (2) RICO’s nationwide service is conditioned on an initial jurisdictional anchor and an “ends-of-justice” showing. The court’s disciplined application of Rule 4(k), Eleventh Amendment principles, and judicial immunity serves as a cautionary tale for litigants tempted to file sprawling conspiracy suits in forums lacking any tangible connection to the defendants. Going forward, parties invoking federal statutes to establish jurisdiction within the Third Circuit must grapple with Ngambo’s clear message: procedural gateways remain well-guarded, and creative pleading cannot substitute for proper jurisdiction.