Anne Elise Thompson
How Judge Thompson rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Thompson no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Thompson
Anne Elise Thompson joined the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey after receiving a commission on November 2, 1979. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, she assumed senior status on June 1, 2001. A January 2026 report described her as an inactive senior judge.
How Judge Thompson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In ProFoot, Inc. v. MSD Consumer Care, Inc., Thompson held that allegations of direct evidence of monopoly power plausibly supported a Sherman Act Section 2 claim without a formal market definition at the pleading stage.
“these allegations present a plausible claim for Section 2 liability under a theory of direct evidence of monopoly power: MSD deliberately engaged in anticompetitive conduct that gave it the ability to raise prices for certain foot-care products”
In a dispute over a former employee’s competing business, Thompson granted preliminary relief after expedited discovery and a hearing supported likely breach of the duty of loyalty and continuing loss of customers. The relief targeted dealings with customers solicited while the employee still worked for the plaintiff.
“Thus, the Court finds that SFX has asserted facts to demonstrate that it suffered irreparable injury when Transcendent took its customers”
Procedural preferences
In Ni v. Rite Aid, Thompson read a former employee’s pro se complaint and opposition liberally but dismissed his discrimination and retaliation claims. She found the pleaded facts made termination for threatening messages more plausible than the asserted unlawful motive.
“Ni has failed to allege facts that push his complaint 'over the line from conceivable to plausible.' ... the Court thus finds that Ni has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted and will dismiss Ni's claims”
In the Acme Markets dispute, Thompson denied a motion to strike because the defendant had not shown prejudice from the challenged allegations.
“striking is generally disfavored in the absence of prejudice to the adverse party. ... Defendant has neither asserted nor demonstrated any prejudice”
Cautions
In a prisoner's failure-to-protect suit, Thompson granted the defendants summary judgment because the evidence did not show they knew of and disregarded a specific risk to him or that a county policy or custom caused the asserted harm.
“negligence alone is insufficient to prove a violation of the Eighth Amendment. ... Plaintiff has produced no evidence that Defendants have a custom or policy that resulted in deliberate indifference to a pervasive risk of harm to Plaintiff.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint ... To the extent that Plaintiff can remedy the above deficiencies, she may refile an Amended Complaint within 30 days.”
“Defendant has neither asserted nor demonstrated any prejudice resulting from Plaintiff's allegations of recklessness in its Complaint. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike such allegations will be denied.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be denied.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [docket # 30] is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [docket #33] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was 'clearly erroneous.' ... the Court will affirm the order of the Magistrate Judge.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Rite Aid's Motion to Dismiss [docket # 3] is GRANTED; and it is ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED. ... If Ni wishes to amend and refile his Complaint he must include either the $350.00 filing fee or a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [131] is DENIED.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and for a transfer of venue [6] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that this Court shall retain venue.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Extend Time for Service of Summons and Complaint is GRANTED”
“the Court denies Defendant’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, finding that both parties failed to behave reasonably, resulting in essentially off-setting penalties.”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [73] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [docket nos. 89 and 98] are DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c) will be granted, and the Court will grant judgment in Defendants’ favor on Count II of the Amended Complaint.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Thompson was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2022.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 5 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Thompson no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.