Michael A. Shipp

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 8 signed orders read

How Judge Shipp decides

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

What persuades

Survives summary judgment by drawing all inferences for the nonmovant where a genuine dispute of material fact exists (e.g. whether a party held an insurable interest, or whether a seller 'created the defect').

“Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs favor, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Healthquest has an insurable interest in the Replacement Dome... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, to the extent they seek dismissal of Healthquest's claims, is accordingly denied.”

Procedural preferences

Reconsideration is an 'extraordinary remedy' granted 'very sparingly'; it is not a vehicle to relitigate or to raise arguments (e.g. 'complex instrumentality') that could have been raised earlier.

“It is inappropriate now on a motion for reconsideration for Briggs to raise a new argument in regards to what type of evidence would be needed to prove a defect.”

§1292(b) interlocutory certification is used sparingly and requires a substantial ground for difference of opinion (conflicting precedent), not mere disagreement.

“the Court finds that the order in question does not offer substantial ground for difference of opinion as to its correctness”

Cautions

Will not reopen discovery on the eve of trial for a strategy change; a client is bound by the strategic choices of freely-selected counsel, even where that counsel later faced personal/criminal difficulties.

“Ex post facto disagreement with strategic decisions of counsel, made in the course of litigation, does not constitute good cause.”

Enforces the New Jersey Product Liability Act's exclusivity: common-law theories (implied warranty, unjust enrichment, consumer fraud) for harm caused by a product are subsumed by the NJPLA and dismissed, even when pleaded in the alternative.

“If the Court permitted the alternative pleading in the manner attempted by Plaintiff, it would contravene the NJPLA's intent to provide a single statutory products liability claim.”

After a settled case is dismissed without the settlement being incorporated into the dismissal order, he holds the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the agreement (Kokkonen); a motion to enforce filed months later, even where the clerk 'reopened' the case to enter dismissal, is denied for want of an independent jurisdictional basis.

“Enforcement of the settlement agreement... requires its own basis for jurisdiction... Defendants' Motion asks the Court to enforce a settlement agreement, for which there is no apparent basis for federal jurisdiction.”

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 dismiss
N = 2
Granted: 2 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 2
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for reconsideration
N = 2
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Daubert motion to preclude expert
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to certify interlocutory appeal
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to reopen discovery
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for leave to file surreply
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motions to strike
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion to enforce settlement
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Preliminary injunction
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Default judgment
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for attorney fees
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion for sanctions
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.

Healthquest of Central Jersey, LLC v. Antares AUL Syndicate 1274
3:18-cv-12375 · 2020-07-31
Daubert motion to preclude expert (defendant) Denied

“(1) Defendants' Motion to Preclude is denied;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part;”

Motion for leave to file surreply (plaintiff) Granted

“(3) Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Sur-Reply is granted;”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted in part

“(4) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part.”

Williams v. Murray, Inc.; Briggs & Stratton; Home Depot U.S.A.
3:12-cv-02122 · 2015-08-24
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Granted in part

“Briggs's motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“Home Depot's motion for reconsideration is denied”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact which would preclude the granting of summary judgment... Therefore, Home Depot's 'supplemental application' is denied.”

Motion to certify interlocutory appeal (defendant) Denied

“the Court denies Briggs's motion for certification of the July Order for failing to meet the second prong requiring a substantial ground for difference of opinion.”

Motion to reopen discovery (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the good cause standard... Plaintiffs' cross-motion to reopen discovery is denied”

Rueda v. Nexeo Solutions, LLC
3:14-cv-03801 · 2015-03-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the above reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file an amended complaint.”

Nagy v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
3:12-cv-04235 · 2013-03-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth claims without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file an amended complaint. The Court denies without prejudice Defendant's request to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.”

O.C.E.A.N., Inc. v. Stonehurst Association, Inc.
3:20-cv-07878 · 2022-02-18
Motion to enforce settlement (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”

First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin (NJ Attorney General)
3:23-cv-23076 · 2024-11-12
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for a TRO and PI is denied. This Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any claims Plaintiff brings related to the enforceability of the Subpoena because Plaintiff has yet to suffer any actual or imminent harm related to it.”

Radius Bank v. Revilla & Company, CPA's, PC
3:20-cv-01370 · 2021-03-02
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is granted. ... The Court will grant its Motion contingent upon its filing of supplemental briefing detailing particularized damages.”

Wang & Xu v. (FLSA/NJWHL wage-and-hour defendant)
3:15-cv-02950 · 2020-09-10
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“The Court also denies Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.”