Keith E. Lynott
How Judge Lynott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a fully integrated written contract with an unambiguous integration clause, he strictly applies the parol evidence rule to bar reliance on an earlier oral side-agreement covering the same subject matter -- even where the plaintiff has some evidence the oral deal existed.
“The intention clause negates any basis or need for, right to, or utility of a trial as to the disputed facts concerning whether the 0.5% Oral Agreement ever existed, as the BDA incontrovertibly superseded any such agreement.”
He will grant partial summary judgment establishing liability alone while expressly deferring causation and damages to trial, rather than resolving the whole claim at once, when internal evidence (e.g., a party's own videos or communications) conclusively proves the breach itself.
“It finds the motion record, even when examined in D&B's favor, establishes conclusively a breach of contract by D&B. That said, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the Court emphasizes that it renders no determination at this time that such breach caused any injury or damages to Tropare or its business.”
In fraud/consumer-fraud disputes turning on a defendant's actual knowledge of a latent defect, he will deny summary judgment to both sides when the record permits competing inferences, rather than picking a side on a cold paper record.
“The Plaintiff may establish its claims to a trier of fact. But there is no basis in this record for a conclusion that the facts are so one-sided in the Plaintiff's favor as to require judgment in the Plaintiff's favor as a matter of law.”
He readily consolidates a later-filed, differently-venued action into his own first-filed case whenever a common question of law or fact exists, weighing efficiency and the risk of inconsistent outcomes heavily -- additional parties or broader claims in the later suit do not defeat consolidation.
“Considerations of efficiency, sound judicial management, judicial economy and, in particular, avoidance of inconsistent outcomes warrant the exercise of discretion to grant the relief.”
Procedural preferences
On a motion for reconsideration of his own interlocutory (non-final) order, he reviews the request de novo rather than under the heightened 'palpably incorrect' standard reserved for final orders -- but that leniency does not translate into an easier path to reversal if no overlooked fact or changed law is shown.
“The Court's prior Order and decision were interlocutory. Accordingly, the Court has examined the motion for reconsideration de novo to determine if reconsideration -- vacating the prior Order -- serves the interest of justice.”
In recurring out-of-network-provider-vs-insurer underpayment suits, he applies a consistently liberal, plaintiff-favorable pleading standard on motions to dismiss, generally denying dismissal of the core claims against insurers while trimming specific, more thinly pled counts against ancillary claims-repricing vendors.
“For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part these motions. It finds, under the liberal standards applicable to assessing the legal sufficiency of pleadings, that the Complaint states viable claims for relief. However, it also dismisses certain claims subject to a right to re-plead.”
In complex, document-heavy CBLP cases he readily appoints a Special Discovery Master to manage ongoing discovery disputes rather than resolving each dispute himself piecemeal.
“The Court concludes independently that the circumstances of this CBLP case warrant the appointment of a Special Discovery Master in light of the complexity of the issues and the likely need for frequent consideration of discovery-related applications from both sides as the case proceeds.”
Cautions
He is willing to sanction discovery misconduct with a fee award even absent any finding of willfulness, but says he does so rarely and only when the record leaves no other conclusion -- a party's use of a truncated recording without disclosing a complete version existed was enough.
“Although this Court has rarely granted such applications for sanctions and has examined this application carefully and through a skeptical prism, it is constrained in the circumstances presented to grant the application.”
Before an attorney can sue a former client for unpaid fees, he requires strict compliance with the Court Rules' fee-arbitration Pre-Action Notice procedure -- dismissing (without prejudice) claims filed without it, even where the underlying fee dispute is otherwise well pled.
“The Court determined that, in order to pursue such a claim against a client or former client for unpaid legal fees, Lowenstein was first required to serve on Harmony a Pre-Action Notice, advising Harmony of its right to pursue fee arbitration.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Crown's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs after trial is hereby GRANTED... The Court awards Crown attorneys' fees in the amount of $88,707.00 and costs in the amount of $5,666.19... The Court enters Judgment in favor of Crown and against F.M. Renaissance in the amount of $94,373.19.”
“The Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court also denies the Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment.”
“ORDERED that Tropare's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be and hereby is GRANTED... ENTERED AGAINST D&B on Count I of Tropare's Second Amended Counterclaim, declaring that D&B breached its contractual obligations to Tropare... the Court emphasizes that it renders no determination at this time that such breach caused any injury or damages to Tropare.”
“ORDERED that D&B's Motion for Reconsideration be and hereby is DENIED... There is no claim lodged in this application that the Court overlooked facts that bear on the issues presented for decision.”
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED... it is hereby declared and adjudged that the Zhuhai Defendants are not and have never been members of Ge Lab Cosmetics LLC.”
“Accordingly, the separate motion seeking to dismiss the Counterclaim due to discovery violations is moot.”
“The Court grants the motion to vacate the Orders appointing the SFA with the understanding, as represented by counsel, that the designated SFAs... have been fully paid for all services heretofore performed. There is no longer a need for such services.”
“The Court, also for the reasons set forth herein, grants the motion to amend to interpose a Third Amended Complaint.”
“ORDERED that the Joint Motion is GRANTED in its entirety... judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants dismissing with prejudice (i) plaintiff Alexander M. Cardoso's claim for breach of the Alleged Oral Agreement and (ii) the First Count of the Verified Complaint to the extent it encompasses Cardoso's claim for breach of the Alleged Oral Agreement.”
“The Joint Motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 4:23-2(b) and this Court's inherent authority, defendants... are awarded, and plaintiffs... shall pay, the reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred by Defendants that were caused by Plaintiffs' failure to obey the Court's Order Compelling Discovery entered March 29, 2019.”
“Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.”
“Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED... For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment.”
“It generally denies the motions in limine, though it finds certain aspects of such motions are unopposed and thus granted.”
“That Delta's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict is DENIED.”
“That Delta's Motion for New Trial is WITHDRAWN.”
“Lowenstein's motion is hereby GRANTED; The Harmony Action is transferred from Bergen County to Essex County and consolidated with the Lowenstein Action; The consolidated action is assigned to the CBLP.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Cross-Motion is and shall hereby be DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two of the Complaint and Amended Complaint is and shall hereby be GRANTED in part... DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to service by Lowenstein upon Harmony of a Pre-Action Notice... Count Four is and shall hereby be DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Wilen.”
“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff SDP's Motion be and is hereby GRANTED in part as set forth in the attached Statement of Reasons.”
Put Judge Lynott's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lynott actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lynott's own signed orders and cites them.