A New Jersey federal judge on Monday tossed a proposed class action filed on behalf of convicted drunk drivers accusing Draeger Safety Diagnostics Inc. of making inaccurate breath-alcohol concentration testers, finding that the suit improperly asked the court to review and reject state court judgments.

Plaintiffs Bobby Johnson and Edwin Aguaiza were arrested for drunk driving in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and challenged the accuracy of the BAC results obtained by police using Draeger's Alcotest 7110 machine after their convictions. They allege the company designed the machine with no way to ensure accuracy and that executives lied about the machine's capabilities.

U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares found Johnson and Aguaiza's lawsuit violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars suits if the claim was litigated in state court prior to the filing of the federal action or if the claim is "inextricably intertwined" with the state court's adjudication, meaning that federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong.

Judge Linares said in the context of this case, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine, whether the Alcotest 7110 contains a design defect under the New Jersey Product Liability Act and whether Draeger’s vice president falsely testified that the Alcotest was a scientifically reliable device in the context of the New Jersey Supreme Court case that ultimately found the devices to be reliable.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court has already concluded that the Alcotest was — and remains — 'scientifically reliable' for the purpose for which it was designed — to test breath samples to determine blood-alcohol concentration," the judge said. "Thus, a finding by this court that the Alcotest contains a defect for the purpose for which it was designed would effectively prevent the enforcement of the state court's orders upon which plaintiffs’ criminal convictions were based."

He said the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not allow a plaintiff to seek relief that, if granted, would prevent a state court from enforcing its orders.

The judge also said if he found that Draeger's vice president lied under oath before the New Jersey Supreme Court, the decision would be inextricably intertwined with and could render ineffectual the state court orders upon which the plaintiffs' criminal convictions were based — including but not limited to the Supreme Court's decision itself.

And the judge found that the alleged erroneous results reported by the Alcotest, without more, did not cause the injury that plaintiffs have complained of, namely their "life-changing" choice to plead guilty to drunk driving, which, in turn, allegedly led to headaches, stomach pains and mental stress.

"Rather, based on the allegations set forth in the third amended complaint, it was the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court ... concluding that the Alcotest was, at that point in time, 'scientifically reliable' and that it generated results that were admissible to prove a per se violation of [New Jersey law] ... that produced plaintiffs' 'life changing' dilemma," the judge said.

Counsel for Draeger was not immediately available for comment Monday.

"I have reviewed Judge Linares’ decision, and I am considering an appeal to the Third Circuit. While I have high regard for Judge Linares, I am concerned that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is being interpreted to limit my clients’ rights to seek relief under the New Jersey Product Liability Act. I maintain that the plaintiffs have properly pled a cause of action," the plaintiffs' attorney Ashton E. Thomas said Monday.