Chad N. Cagan
How Judge Cagan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a bench trial over an alleged multi-million-dollar 'loan,' he privileges the parties' own contemporaneous written records -- a bank check's payee notation, an email disclaiming any debt -- over a party's live, self-serving trial testimony, however wealthy or sophisticated that party claims to be.
“In an email dated October 24, 2018 Parmar wrote to Sartison in part, "...About the investment you received in Ranga Bhoomi LLC, which is now frozen by the govt... You do not owe me anything. I will never ask for anything from you."”
He conducts a genuinely searching witness-credibility analysis in bench trials, weighing candor, consistency, and self-interest rather than deferring to a witness's claimed sophistication or business success.
“The court finds Parmar to be an incredible witness. Parmar's testimony was conjured, unsupported, refuted or contradicted by record evidence... He was not an honest witness.”
On a net-opinion challenge to a defense expert, he looks for parity of scientific methodology between the competing experts -- if both used the same accepted testing protocol, a differing conclusion is a jury question, not a basis to exclude the less-favored report.
“[W]hat's very, very clear [in the report] . . . is that the defendant['s] expert[] performed the same scientific testing as the plaintiff['s] expert[] did[;] the coefficient of friction.”
Procedural preferences
On Consumer Fraud Act fee-shifting petitions, he will find a 'common core' of facts across a plaintiff's prevailing and non-prevailing claims (so he does not do a mechanical claim-count ratio), but still applies a steep downward adjustment for limited ultimate success, unsegregated billing across dismissed co-plaintiffs, and comparative-fault reductions to the underlying damages award.
“the court finds plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs in the total sum of $840,799.88 is unreasonable, excessive and should be reduced for several reasons.”
He limits depositions of high-ranking government officials to the narrow scope actually connected to their claimed personal knowledge, treating broader questioning as unnecessarily duplicative once a subordinate with the same institutional knowledge has already been deposed -- even where the official signed a document seemingly relevant to the case.
“the condition of the entire Asbury Park boardwalk in 2023 is not at issue in this case... [The City]'s remediation of the entire boardwalk in 2023 is not admissible to prove that [the City] was allegedly negligent in connection with an alleged popped screw on a plank in February 2021.”
In post-conviction relief matters, he enforces the five-year procedural time bar strictly, requiring 'compelling, extenuating circumstances' rather than a merely plausible excuse, and will reach the merits in the alternative rather than resting solely on the procedural default.
“The court held the PCR petition was untimely under Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)(A) and defendant's claim of "excusable neglect" was unsupported by the facts presented, but even if defendant's factual assertions were true, there was no reasonable probability enforcement of the time bar would result in a fundamental injustice.”
Cautions
He will not let a plaintiff recover twice for the same injury from the same tortfeasor merely by declining to disclose a co-defendant settlement until compelled -- once the settlement is produced, he treats an undisclosed full-satisfaction release as foreclosing any further imputed-fault recovery against the remaining defendant.
“the court rejects plaintiff's request to impute AIA's 42% apportionment of liability to Firestone, even if the argument were not abandoned by plaintiff, as such an outcome would result in an impermissible double recovery for the same injury caused by the same tort feasor.”
He does not treat a criminal restitution obligation as privately renegotiable between a defendant and his victims outside the probation department or prosecutor's office, and rejects attempts to use a PCR petition as a vehicle to reduce restitution based on victims who have not yet been located.
“We do not give our imprimatur to defendant's proposal to reach out directly to victims to essentially renegotiate individual restitution settlements with them... Criminal courts should not facilitate, much less authorize, contact between convicted offenders and their victims except through the probation department or the prosecutor's office victim advocate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court finds a reasonable attorney's fee and costs award is $250,000. This amount represents approximately 469.92% of $53,200, almost 5x the amount of ascertainable losses awarded by the jury.”
“the court finds plaintiff's request for total damages against defendant in the amount of $1,865,844.96 to be excessive and unreasonable.”
“By order filed November 1, 2024, the court granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy and RICO violations.”
“On March 4, 2025, the court granted defendant's motion to involuntarily dismiss plaintiff's claim for negligence pursuant to R. 4:37-2.”
“By order filed March, 7, 2025 the court denied Firestone's motion for judgment pursuant to R. 4:40-1.”
“By order dated June 6, 2025 the court granted defendant's motion and directed plaintiff to produce an unredacted version of the release and settlement agreement to defendant and the court by June 9, 2025.”
“Plaintiff's request for judgment under count one of the first amended complaint alleging unjust enrichment is DENIED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's request for judgment under count two of the first amended complaint alleging common law fraud is DENIED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's request for judgment under count three of the first amended complaint alleging breach of contract is DENIED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's request for judgment under count four of the first amended complaint alleging conversion is DENIED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's request for judgment under count five of the first amended complaint alleging promissory estoppel is DENIED with prejudice.”
“[I am] satisfied . . . under the particular circumstances here that this is not a net opinion . . . [and] that this expert report in fact provides the why and wherefore for the conclusions that were reached.”
“The parties hotly dispute the underlying issue as to whether or not the bay area, the cargo bay area of this U-Haul was defectively designed, and the defense expert says [it was] not defectively designed. The plaintiffs' expert says [it was] defectively designed.”
“the court found plaintiff's request for the video unduly burdensome in both labor and cost, particularly given the lack of demonstrated relevance.”
“plaintiff has already deposed several [City] employees with knowledge of the maintenance of the boardwalk including . . . Bianchini, the head of the DPW at the time of plaintiff's alleged slip and fall in 2021. As such, . . . Moor's deposition testimony would be unnecessarily duplicative.”
“After hearing oral argument, Judge Chad N. Cagan authored a thorough nineteen-page written opinion denying defendant's PCR.”
Put Judge Cagan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Cagan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Cagan's own signed orders and cites them.