James R. Swift
How Judge Swift rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Swift
James R. Swift is a judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey in the Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Vicinage. He joined the bench in March 2012 and serves in the Civil Division as the vicinage's designated Complex Business Litigation Program judge.
Judge Swift's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Swift's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Swift decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In TeamHealth v. UnitedHealthcare, Swift held that the plaintiffs' state-law claims concerned reimbursement rates for covered services, not entitlement to coverage, and therefore did not alter ERISA's participant protections.
“[T]he court finds that plaintiffs' state law claims relate solely to the rate of reimbursement, not the right of reimbursement ... ERISA's goals of protecting participants and beneficiaries of employee benefits plans are not altered by plaintiffs claims.”
In the arbitration dispute cited here, Swift denied dismissal after expressly disagreeing with the Third Circuit's reading of a New Jersey jury-trial right.
“[F]or this court's belief that the Third Circuit got it wrong, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED ... the Third Circuit dismisses a Constitutional right acknowledged by our highest court by posturing that a plaintiff who has this right must waive it even when it chooses not to. The right to a jury cannot be dismissed so flippantly.”
Procedural preferences
In Delaware River Properties, Swift held that the subcontract left the choice to arbitrate the Railroad-Riggs dispute to Railroad alone. After Railroad declined to include Riggs in arbitration, he stayed the Riggs and Hunter claims pending the arbitration between DRP and Railroad.
“These sections plainly and unambiguously demonstrate that disputes between Railroad and Riggs can only proceed to arbitration at the sole and exclusive option of Railroad.”
In Myrtle Packaging v. Berks Plant Design, Swift struck Leh’s pleadings after Leh failed to appear at a hearing required by a consent order. Leh submitted a surgeon’s letter after the hearing; the appellate court held that it did not meet the order’s requirements and affirmed the ruling.
“[T]he consent order expressly required Leh's appearance at the motion to withdraw hearing, the pre-trial conference, and trial, or else he had to provide a valid excuse for his absence ... the surgeon's letter failed to comply with the explicit consent order terms.”
In the cited malpractice case, Swift found that the plaintiff had neither sought an extension during the affidavit-of-merit period nor pursued the case until after the dismissal motion was filed.
“During the [sixty]-day period there was never a request for another [sixty] days ... [Plaintiff did not] request that the medical records be filed within the time period ... the only time [p]laintiff did anything to prosecute this case [was] after this motion was filed.”
Cautions
In Mullica Hill, the appellate court reversed Swift’s summary judgment for the county authority on the trespass and taking claims because material facts about the property owner’s consent remained disputed.
“Our de novo review of the record shows that there are factual disputes pertaining to the critical question of whether plaintiffs granted a right of access to CCIA in exchange for the benefit of remediation ... we conclude that summary judgment for neither party ... is appropriate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For all of the reasons set forth above, the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.”
“Count One of plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed for failing to state a cause of action as plead ... the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.”
“The ESI Order directs the parties to produce all documents identified by their agreed-upon ESI search terms, except those which are privileged or contain highly proprietary business information, regardless of whether they are responsive or relevant.”
“The Riggs and Hunter claims will be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration between DRP and Railroad.”
“The April 4, 2024 order provided that entry of judgment on liability was entered in favor of plaintiff and against Leh on all claims set forth in the amended complaint.”
“On May 2, 2024, the court entered final judgment in favor of Myrtle and against Leh in the amount of $26,542,825.”
“a March 6, 2024 order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.”
“a March 6, 2024 order granting defendant Cumberland County Improvement Authority's (CCIA) motion for summary judgment with prejudice and dismissing plaintiffs' claims and cross-claims.”
“On December 5, 2023, the trial court granted Fralinger sanctions in the amount of $30,000.”
“I see nothing wrong that the hospital did. I think they did exactly what they were obligated to do under this agreement, and under law.”
“On July 16, 2024, the motion court entered an order in each matter granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims.”
“That finding alone, the court concluded, justified entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Karnuk's claims.”
“On July 16, 2024, the motion court entered an order in each matter granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims.”
“In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff Lyshron Statten ... appeals from a May 10, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice.”
“In December 2018, trial began before Judge Swift. On December 5, 2018, Judge Swift granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the complaint, triggering the instant appeal.”
Draft for Judge Swift with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Swift, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Swift's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace