Karen M. Williams
How Judge Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment she holds the non-movant to specific, affirmative record evidence and will not let a plaintiff rest on allegations; where there is a genuine factual dispute (e.g. who breached a contract, or when an asset was actually sold) she denies SJ and sends the issue to trial, but where the record is one-sided she grants.
“To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party.”
Applies the NJ discovery rule narrowly: a fraud/contract claim accrues once a reasonable, diligent plaintiff would be alerted to the possibility of a claim -- a defendant's failure to provide statutorily-required documents (K-1 filings) on request is itself the notice event, so claims sat on for years are time-barred.
“the failure of AP Hospitality to provide the form K-1 filings to plaintiffs alerted them of their potential claim... plaintiff's claims arising from the transaction... accrued in 2008, fourteen years before the filing of this action.”
Procedural preferences
Treats Article III standing as a threshold filter even on a Rule 12(c) motion: a plaintiff who is not a party to the contract he sues on lacks standing and is dismissed, while a co-plaintiff who is a party survives where a factual dispute remains.
“Plaintiff Elijah Lewis does not have standing to sue Defendant”
On Daubert/expert challenges she favors admissibility where the expert ties a coherent methodology to the specific product/design at issue, holding that a defendant's critiques of the opinion go to weight and are for cross-examination, not exclusion.
“Defendant MHS' critiques of his opinion can be addressed at trial through cross examination.”
Cautions
On IDEA appeals she applies the deferential modified-de-novo standard and will affirm an ALJ's final decision on summary judgment, particularly where the challenging party fails to substantively oppose; she has also pointedly noted on the record a recurring plaintiffs'-side counsel's sanctioned billing practices.
“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”
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: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Defendants Lyneer, UPS, and SDI's Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED”
“Defendant MHS's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Opinion Testimony are DENIED.”
“the Court denies Defendant MHS' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's expert's testimony finding that Plaintiff's expert testimony is sufficient to survive a motion to exclude”
“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 8), will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”