Sarah Beth Johnson
How Judge Johnson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She denies Consumer Fraud Act protection to a nominally 'residential' home-improvement contract when the plaintiff itself is a sophisticated, experienced, professionally-advised repeat purchaser, regardless of the contractor's own regulatory status.
“Enclave was a knowledgeable, experienced, and sophisticated purchaser of Elite's renovation services. Thus, the CFA does not apply to the transaction underlying the parties' relationship.”
She reads insurance-policy exclusions on their plain terms and independently applies the fortuity doctrine, denying coverage for a business-motivated shutdown even when a public emergency and a government order set the stage for it.
“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.”
She applies the economic loss doctrine strictly to bar tort claims (fraud, negligence) that are intrinsic to a contractual relationship, even where the plaintiff frames the same conduct as fraudulent billing.
“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. Therefore, the ELD precludes the tort claims asserted by Enclave.”
She declines to extend one co-defendant's already-won summary judgment to a differently-situated co-defendant (e.g. a manufacturer vs. a mere supplier) where their factual roles genuinely differ.
“It is undisputed that, while Universal did not manufacture, assemble, or install the windows or doors, Viwinco did manufacture them... the declination of any party to contest Universal's apparent lack of duty or warranty... does not estop that party from pursuing crossclaims for indemnification and contribution from Viwinco.”
Procedural preferences
Rather than force a ruling on an undeveloped summary-judgment record, she will convert an effectively unopposed motion into a conditioned voluntary dismissal that protects all sides and preserves the record for later.
“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.”
When a claim's viability turns on contested expert testimony, she will deny summary judgment without prejudice and schedule a Rule 104 admissibility hearing before ruling on the merits, rather than resolve the expert question on the papers.
“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.”
On reconsideration of her own interlocutory orders, she requires a showing of an overlooked fact or a reason revision serves the interest of justice -- a non-participating party's later disagreement with her factual findings is not enough.
“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
She rejects civil-racketeering (NJRICO) claims that simply repackage an ordinary business-tort dispute, absent concrete evidence of an actual pattern of criminal conduct.
“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.”
She does not impose a 'duty to investigate' on a contracting counterparty merely because it learns of a dispute between two other parties, absent an independent legal duty or special relationship.
“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.”
She dismisses claims with prejudice where no amount of repleading could cure the defect (an absent legal duty, a non-convertible asset), but leaves a claim open without prejudice where discovery might still surface curative facts.
“I find that Farmers is entitled to dismissal of Count 2... 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.”
Put Judge Johnson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Johnson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Johnson's own signed orders and cites them.