Michael A. Shipp
How Judge Shipp rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shipp
Michael Andre Shipp is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Shipp received a commission on July 26, 2012.
Judge Shipp's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Shipp, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Send one courtesy copy of motion papers with attachments of 150 or more pages.
“One Courtesy Copy: Of Motion papers that contain attachments of 150 or more pages.”
Filing
E-file consent orders, stipulations, and proposed orders with a cover letter unless they accompany motion papers.
“Consent Orders, Stipulations, Proposed Orders: ( other than proposed orders accompanying motion papers): Should be electronically filed as an attachment to a cover letter.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Second Amended Standing Order 2026-02: In Re Increase in Immigration-Related Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking Emergent Relief ↗
- Standing Order 2025-05: IN RE Procedures for Access to and Service of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 2025-04: IN RE "Schedule A" Cases ↗
- Standing Order 2024-03: In re: Amendment to Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents and Guidance for Same ↗
- Standing Order 2024-02: Electronic Signatures ↗
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.”
In the May Curaleaf opinion, Shipp found the New Jersey labor peace agreement requirement preempted as applied under the federal labor statute, while denying interim relief on a separate irreparable harm ground.
“The Court, accordingly, finds that the LPA requirement is preempted under Machinists, as well as Garmon, and that Plaintiffs have therefore shown a likelihood of success on the merits.”
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”
In a bankruptcy appeal over a tenancy by the entirety exemption, Shipp denied the debtor’s stay and temporary restraining order requests after finding no likelihood of success on the merits; he did not reach the other preliminary relief factors.
“because Appellant fails to make the requisite showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not analyze the remaining factors.”
Cautions
In Williams v. Murray, Shipp declined to reopen discovery before trial after a party disagreed with earlier counsel’s litigation strategy. He found a later change of view about counsel’s choices did not establish good cause.
“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.”
In Curaleaf, he denied a preliminary injunction after the companies waited months following notice of a labor peace agreement violation and penalty before seeking relief. He found that delay defeated the urgency needed to show irreparable harm.
“The Court finds that this alone is fatal to Plaintiff’s PI Motion and is reason for the Court to find no irreparable harm.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“(1) Defendants' Motion to Preclude is denied;”
“(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part;”
“(3) Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Sur-Reply is granted;”
“(4) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Briggs's motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part”
“Home Depot's motion for reconsideration is 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.”
“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.”
“the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the good cause standard... Plaintiffs' cross-motion to reopen discovery is denied”
“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.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and Sixth claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to file an amended complaint.”
“Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 17) is 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.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is granted. ... The Court will grant its Motion contingent upon its filing of supplemental briefing detailing particularized damages.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.”
“The Court also denies Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions.”
“MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 40 Motion for TRO without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 9/25/2025.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Cross Motion to Strike Defendants’ Certification & Motion to Reaffirm Entry of Default (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| 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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 35,696 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 35,696 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 36,271 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 36,707 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 35,345 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 29,886 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 20,146 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15,390 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 26 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 27 |
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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, not for Judge Shipp: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 370 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,266 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2,317 | 14.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 36.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,921 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,378 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,053 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,064 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 9,031 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 10,590 | 9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Shipp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shipp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shipp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace