Christine P. O'Hearn

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 5 signed orders read

How Judge O'Hearn decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Decides employment-retaliation cases (CEPA / Pierce) on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and will grant summary judgment at the causation/pretext stage: a roughly four-month gap between protected activity and termination is too remote to infer causation on temporal proximity alone, and a single stray supervisor remark is not a 'pattern of antagonism.'

“This nearly four-month gap is far too long to support a prima facie case without more.”

Enforces Article III standing as a threshold bar in data-breach class actions: not every data breach is an injury in fact, especially where the exposed information is already public or not sensitive enough to enable identity theft, and plaintiffs must plausibly link the breach to a concrete harm.

“not every data breach results in an injury especially, here, when much of the information stolen is already public and/or not sensitive enough to give rise to identity theft.”

Procedural preferences

Treats striking a pleading or dismissal as a sanction of last resort, applying the six Poulis factors and refusing to strike where prejudice is unclear (e.g. the adversary has equal access to the withheld documents) and discovery has not closed.

“Dismissal is a harsh remedy and should be reserved for only the most extreme cases, as the policy of the law is to favor the hearing of a litigant's claim on the merits.”

Will not enter summary judgment in the alternative while discovery has been stayed or remains open; the proper course is to refile the SJ motion at the close of all discovery.

“complete discovery has not yet closed and for this reason, Defendant's request for an entry of summary judgment is premature. Defendant may refile its motion for summary judgment at the close of all discovery.”

Cautions

After repeated failed amendments she will dismiss with prejudice rather than grant further leave -- 'three bites at the apple is enough' -- particularly where an Article III standing defect has been identified before and not cured.

“Given the fact that Plaintiffs have already amended the Complaint four times... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the dismissal is with prejudice.”

Applies the PLRA's exhaustion requirement strictly with no equitable exceptions: an inmate who never filed a grievance has not exhausted unless the administrative remedy was genuinely 'unavailable' under Ross v. Blake.

“both the Supreme Court and [the Third Circuit] have rejected judge-made exceptions to the PLRA.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 4
Granted: 3Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to strike
N = 3
Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 2
Granted: 1Moot / procedural: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Gligor v. Alley Cat Allies, Inc.
1:20-cv-19956 · 2023-05-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 40), is GRANTED.”

Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings, Ltd.
1:19-cv-05296 · 2023-12-19
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 145), is GRANTED as to summary judgment.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“Lead Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Extrinsic Evidence or in the Alternative Defer or Deny Defendants' Motion Without Prejudice, (ECF No. 152), is DENIED”

Prisoner COVID-19 / PLRA exhaustion action (1:22-cv-01225-CPO-MJS)
1:22-cv-01225 · 2024-03-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny his motion to dismiss as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny his motion to dismiss as moot.”

In re Samsung Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (MDL 3055)
1:23-md-03055 · 2025-01-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 161). Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations is DENIED as moot. (ECF. No. 163).”

Jonuzi v. Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services
1:23-cv-01509 · 2025-03-20
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“the failure to do so in this case does not warrant such a severe sanction as striking the entire Complaint at this time and on this record... Defendant's Motion to Strike the Complaint is denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“complete discovery has not yet closed and for this reason, Defendant's request for an entry of summary judgment is premature. Defendant may refile its motion for summary judgment at the close of all discovery.”