Jessica S. Allen

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey magistrate 6 signed orders read

How Judge Allen decides

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

What persuades

On a timeliness-based remand she follows the Third Circuit majority view: an amended pleading that would create federal jurisdiction does not become removable upon mere notice of, or consent to, a motion for leave to amend -- only once the state court grants leave and the amendment becomes effective does the 30-day removal clock start. A removal filed within 30 days of that effective date is timely.

“an amended complaint that would provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction does not become removable until the motion to amend is granted and the amended complaint becomes effective.”

She strictly construes removal statutes against removal and will remand on an uncured 1446(d) procedural defect (failure to file the notice of removal with the state-court clerk), and independently where the amount in controversy is unquantifiable -- in an injunction case the object is valued from the plaintiff's viewpoint, and an unspecified attorney-fee demand does not satisfy the $75,000 threshold to a legal certainty.

“removal statutes 'are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.' ... the Court finds, to a legal certainty, that Plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000 based on the claims and allegations asserted.”

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.

Motions to remand
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for attorney fees
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to stay
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to compel
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for voluntary dismissal
N = 1
Granted: 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.

Enigwe v. Extended Stay America (ESA Management, LLC)
2:21-cv-12407-MCA-JSA · 2021-10-04
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“this Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be DENIED. ... an amended complaint that would provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction does not become removable until the motion to amend is granted and the amended complaint becomes effective.”

The Township of Cranford v. Cranford Harrison Developers, LLC
2:23-cv-04367-SDW-JSA · 2023-10-11
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“this Court respectfully recommends that this matter be REMANDED, rather than dismissed, to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Union County.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court cannot conclude that the removal was made for any improper purpose, and thus Defendants lacked an 'objectively reasonable basis.' Therefore, the Court declines to recommend an award of costs and fees.”

ADP, Inc. v. Wise Payments Limited; Wise US Inc.
2:21-cv-12457-JXN-JSA · 2022-07-19
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“Wise's Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 44), is DENIED. ... Wise has not met its heavy burden of demonstrating a clear case of hardship or inequity if it is required to go forward with the instant suit at this time.”

Adams v. Home Depot Inc.
2:23-cv-04071-KSH-JSA · 2025-01-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), for failure to provide discovery, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37 & 41(b).”

D'Ambly v. Exoo
2:20-cv-12880-JKS-JSA · 2024-11-25
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“D'Ambly's request to compel the News Defendants to produce documents withheld based on the attorney-client privileged is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Anderson v. Saleno
2:19-cv-19926-BRM-JSA · 2021-09-02
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 50) is hereby adopted in its entirety and entered; and ... the motion for voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”