Darren J. Del Sardo
How Judge Sardo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a discovery dispute, he enforces the Complex Business Litigation Program's own disclosure rules strictly -- a party that has already produced thousands of pages will still be ordered to identify and organize the specific documents supporting a damages computation, and a certification from counsel alone (without personal knowledge of the burden) will not support a protective order.
“There is no certification from Polevoy or anyone else associated with plaintiffs claiming that production of documents, or identifying the previously served documents by Bates Stamp numbers, would be unduly burdensome or expensive.”
At the motion-to-dismiss stage of a multi-defendant fraud scheme, he will not dismiss a claim merely because the complaint groups several defendants together, so long as the allegations plausibly implicate each one in the same alleged scheme.
“The court rejects the defendants' arguments that the allegations are conclusory or that group pleading is impermissible, as the allegations reasonably implicate each defendant.”
On a motion to dismiss for conversion or replevin of fungible but identifiably branded property, circumstantial evidence of unauthorized possession and resale (site inspections, invoices, the defendant's own admissions) is enough to proceed, without the plaintiff pinpointing which specific unit was converted.
“This alleged scheme provides a basis for a cause of action for conversion, the wrongful exercise of dominion and control over property owned by another inconsistent with the owner's rights.”
At summary judgment, when the parties' own certifications genuinely conflict over whether a written agreement was cancelled outright or only modified, he treats that as a jury question rather than resolving it on the papers, even while trimming other claims from the same case.
“a jury could conclude that no contract existed between the parties, finding a lack of mutual agreement, consideration, or certainty. Alternatively, the jury may determine that the Defendant was unjustly enriched.”
Procedural preferences
On motions seeking to limit discovery, he requires a supporting certification from someone with actual personal knowledge of the claimed burden or expense -- a certification from the party's own attorney is not enough under Rule 1:6-6.
“Plaintiffs' support for their motion is a certification from plaintiffs' counsel... Plaintiffs' Counsel does not have personal knowledge regarding the burden or expense of document production, as required by R. 1:6-6.”
When several defendants each separately move to dismiss the same multi-count complaint, he works through each count once against the pleaded facts and applies that same analysis uniformly across all of the separate motions, rather than treating each defendant's motion as raising a wholly distinct inquiry.
“the Motions of all filing Defendants are PARTIALLY GRANTED.”
Cautions
He applies the multi-factor test from All the Way Towing rigorously to exclude negotiated, RFP-driven business-to-business engagements from the Consumer Fraud Act, even where the same complaint's fraud and fiduciary-duty counts survive on the identical facts.
“the court concludes that these were complex, negotiated, business-to-business agreements involving sophisticated entities, not consumer transactions subject to the CFA.”
He applies New Jersey's economic loss doctrine to bar fraud and tort claims that merely restate a breach-of-contract theory between contracting parties, even while letting the underlying contract and unjust-enrichment claims proceed.
“A claim for fraud cannot stand when it merely replicates the basis for a breach-of-contract claim, particularly when the relationship between the parties is purely contractual.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs' appeal of the Special Adjudicator's Report dated October 27, 2025 is hereby DENIED”
“the Motions of all filing Defendants are PARTIALLY GRANTED... the motions to dismiss Counts 10 and 11 are GRANTED, and these counts are DISMISSED, without prejudice.”
“the Plaintiff has demonstrated that a genuine issue of material fact remains for the jury to resolve regarding the Defendant's alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. All other claims brought by the Plaintiff are unsupported and cannot be sustained and are hereby dismissed.”
“Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, the Defendant's Motion is hereby DENIED.”
Put Judge Sardo's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sardo actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sardo's own signed orders and cites them.