Sarah Beth Johnson
How Judge Johnson rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Johnson
Sarah Beth Johnson joined the Superior Court of New Jersey in December 2017 and serves in the Atlantic/Cape May Vicinage. She is the vicinage’s designated judge for the Complex Business Litigation Program and was granted tenure in 2024. Before joining the bench, she practiced labor and employment law at Fox Rothschild in Atlantic City.
Judge Johnson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Johnson'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 Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Enclave Condominium v. Elite Restoration, Johnson found the condominium association too sophisticated a purchaser to invoke Consumer Fraud Act protection for its renovation contract.
“Enclave was a knowledgeable, experienced, and sophisticated purchaser of Elite’s renovation services.”
In DGMB Casino v. American Guarantee, Johnson held the hotel's voluntary closure after an order shuttered casino gaming did not satisfy the policy's tenant-prohibited-access coverage provision.
“I could not conclude that Plaintiff was denied access to the property due to circumstances beyond its control... Plaintiff admits it chose to cause its own economic loss.”
In Enclave Condominium v. Elite Restoration, Johnson dismissed negligence and common-law fraud claims because the alleged defective work and inflated billing arose from duties under the renovation contract.
“However, Elite’s duty to perform the renovation project in a workmanlike manner and accurately bill Enclave for the work performed is intrinsic to the agreement between the parties.”
In Bendesky v. The Waves, Johnson denied manufacturer Viwinco's summary judgment motion on contribution and indemnification crossclaims despite an earlier dismissal of the claims against supplier Universal.
“It is undisputed that, while Universal did not manufacture, assemble, or install the windows or doors, Viwinco did manufacture them.”
Procedural preferences
In Wiser Insurance Agency v. My1Agent, Johnson declined to decide a third party’s summary judgment motion on an insufficient merits record. She instead treated the parties’ position as a request for voluntary dismissal and dismissed the claims against that party without prejudice, subject to conditions.
“I will convert this summary judgment motion by Swyfft to a cross-motion for voluntary dismissal by Wiser, and I will dismiss all claims against Swyfft without prejudice but with conditions.”
In Enclave Condominium v. Elite Restoration, Johnson denied SDA and Scheerer's summary judgment motion without prejudice pending a Rule 104 hearing on the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony.
“Therefore, I will deny SDA/Scheerer’s motion without prejudice and conduct a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of Roberts’ testimony regarding the malpractice claim.”
In Wiser Insurance Agency v. My1Agent, Johnson denied reconsideration of her January 8 order because the application supplied no basis to revise it in the interest of justice.
“Nothing in the present application indicates that any aspect of the January 8, 2025 order or the accompanying Memorandum of Decision is inaccurate or requires revision.”
Cautions
In Wiser Insurance Agency v. My1Agent, Johnson dismissed the racketeering claim without prejudice because the alleged conduct amounted to an ordinary business dispute, while leaving room for evidence of a criminal pattern.
“NJRICO is not intended to address ordinary business torts. I cannot find that Wiser's allegations against Defendants rise to the level of racketeering activity.”
In Wiser Insurance Agency v. My1Agent, Johnson found Farmers had acquired no duty to investigate Wiser's dispute with My1Agent merely by learning of it.
“New Jersey law does not recognize the automatic acquisition of a legal duty – such as a duty to investigate, disclose, or act – when one party learns of a dispute between two other parties, with one of whom the first party has a contract.”
In Wiser Insurance Agency v. My1Agent, Johnson dismissed the negligence claim against Farmers with prejudice because repleading could not establish a duty under the circumstances she found.
“dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because no amount of repleading will create the existence of a duty by Farmers to Wiser under these circumstances.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.”
“IT IS on this 3rd day of JULY, 2023 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.”
“IT IS on this 8th day of December, 2023 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED... The record contains issues of fact precluding the entry of summary judgment in favor of Viwinco.”
“The Plaintiff's dispositive motion is GRANTED in part, and Count 1 of the Counterclaim of Defendant Elite Restoration, Inc. ('Elite') is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Elite's dispositive motion is GRANTED in part, and Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12 of the Plaintiff's Verified Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“The motion filed on behalf of Defendants Structural Design Associates, Inc and Andrew Scheerer is DENIED without prejudice; the court will schedule a hearing pursuant to Rule 104 to determine the admissibility of the testimony of the Plaintiff's expert witness”
“I will convert this summary judgment motion by Swyfft to a cross-motion for voluntary dismissal by Wiser, and I will dismiss all claims against Swyfft without prejudice but with conditions similar to those set forth in the proposed order submitted with Wiser's October 11, 2024 letter.”
“IT IS on this 8th Day of January, 2025 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED in part, and the Plaintiff's claims against Swyfft are DISMISSED without prejudice under R. 4:37-1(b).”
“IT IS on this 29th day of AUGUST, 2025 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion for reconsideration of the January 8, 2025 order is DENIED... My1Agent's motion is DENIED.”
“Counts 2 and 3 of the third amended complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice as to the movant only; Count 10 of the third amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all Defendants; and The motion is denied as to Count 9.”
“The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice in their entirety.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the defense motion are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“The Plaintiff’s separate cross-motions are all DENIED in their entirety.”
Draft for Judge Johnson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Johnson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Johnson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace