Michael E. Farbiarz
How Judge Farbiarz rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Farbiarz
Michael Etan Farbiarz is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Farbiarz received a commission on May 5, 2023.
Judge Farbiarz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Farbiarz, 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
Do not provide courtesy copies unless Judge Farbiarz requests them.
“Courtesy copies should not be provided, unless they are specifically requested.”
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 Farbiarz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Navigators Specialty Insurance v. Citizens Insurance, Farbiarz predicted that New Jersey's highest court would find a duty to defend claims alleging either direct or vicarious liability, relying chiefly on the policy language and decisions from other states.
“based to a limited extent on lower state court decisions and a federal court decision, and to a much greater extent on the national consensus in this area and the plain meaning of the insurance contract, the Court predicts that the New Jersey Supreme Court will hold that the duty to defend here is triggered by allegations of direct liability or by allegations of vicarious liability.”
In Nationstar Mortgage v. DuBois, Farbiarz remanded a removed foreclosure case after finding no federal jurisdiction, rejecting the removing defendant's request for dismissal despite a claimed indispensable party problem.
“But a federal statute requires remand.”
Procedural preferences
In Sullivan v. Wisler, Farbiarz remanded the remaining state claims after the federal claim was eliminated. He rejected the defendants' complaint that remand came late because they had chosen to file their dispositive motion after discovery.
“The Defendants cannot complain that the last stop, (iii), is coming too late here. This is because it was the Defendants who largely determined the timing of the journey. They could have started down the road years ago, by filing a pre-discovery dispositive motion. They opted not to.”
Cautions
In Days Inns Worldwide v. S&S Airport Hotel, Farbiarz denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion in an indemnity dispute. He declined to consider a settlement based argument first meaningfully raised in their reply brief.
“this argument was only meaningfully raised in the reply brief. ... So the Court will not consider it here. ... They have not carried their burden.”
In Navigators Specialty Insurance Co. v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America, he declined to decide the insurers’ competing summary judgment requests on indemnity because neither had meaningfully developed that issue.
“Given that the parties have not meaningfully developed their arguments, the Court will deny their summary judgment motions (at least for now) as to the duty to indemnify.”
In Courney v. City of Englewood, he dismissed municipal civil rights claims because the complaint’s allegations about the city and council were too conclusory.
“The allegations here are likewise too conclusory to survive the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, as to the City of Englewood and the Englewood City Council, the motion to dismiss is granted.”
In Hwang v. Pobicki, he declined to consider a township zoning argument first developed in the reply brief and resolved the motion on the arguments properly presented.
“arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs are not generally considered.”
In Singh v. BNO Service Station, he denied a renewed request for default judgment on damages because inconsistent pay figures prevented a reliable calculation of the claimed amount.
“There is no way to calculate to a ‘sum certain,’ Baymont Franchise Sys., 348 F.R.D. at 235 (cleaned up), how much the Plaintiff was underpaid without first knowing what the Plaintiff was paid. And as to that, the Plaintiff has not been consistent.”
In Badalamenti v. Resideo Technologies, he denied leave to amend after finding that the plaintiffs had possessed a relevant spreadsheet for about 18 months before filing their second complaint.
“The spreadsheet was available around 18 months before the second complaint was filed. It should have been reviewed and incorporated into that complaint. It was not.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In light of the above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the two FMLA claims is denied.”
“Therefore, the waiver of immunity is not triggered, and the United States' immunity remains intact. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. ... The motion to dismiss is granted.”
“The Defendant-Company moved to dismiss part of the case. The motion is denied.”
“As to the Plaintiffs' claim under Section 11 of the '33 Act, the motion is granted. ... the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim must be dismissed, and on the allegations here Suprema is no reason not to do so.”
“granting 11 ... Motion[] to Dismiss. ... Plaintiff's claims against the Health Department ... are dismissed without prejudice.”
“granting ... 15 Motion[] to Dismiss. ... Plaintiff's claims against the ... Ambulance Corps are dismissed without prejudice.”
“granting in part 13 Motion to Dismiss. ... The Plaintiff's equal-protection and Fourth Amendment claims against the Hospital are dismissed without prejudice. The 13 Motion to Dismiss is denied as to the Plaintiff's medical-malpractice claim.”
“Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not complied with New Jersey law and the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. ... The motion at ECF 31 is granted, and the medical-malpractice claim asserted against the Defendant is dismissed.”
“the Plaintiff has failed to allege an injury to a legally protected interest under the ADA. ... Therefore, the Plaintiff does not have standing. ... The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.”
“as to the Plaintiff's federal claim, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. ... Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's state law claim on grounds of 'absolute' immunity is denied. That is not the sort of immunity that New Jersey prosecutors enjoy.”
“To the extent the Plaintiffs' claims are based on the alleged events of 2017 to 2024, minus the events of March 20, 2022 --- those claims are dismissed, against each of the individual Defendants and against the borough.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied without prejudice to renewal following tightly-targeted and prompt jurisdictional discovery, which will go forward under the supervision of the United States Magistrate Judge.”
“Against the above backdrop, the Court will exercise its discretion and will not consider the current preliminary injunction motion. ... The motion at ECF 345 is denied.”
“the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is granted in part, as to the Defendant's duty to defend, and otherwise denied.”
“The Defendant's motion is denied.”
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 | 13 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 10 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 80 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 13 | 80 |
| Sep 2025 | 13 | 66 |
| Mar 2025 | 15 | 55 |
| Sep 2024 | 18 | 47 |
| Mar 2024 | 40 | 39 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 36 |
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 Farbiarz: 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 Farbiarz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Farbiarz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Farbiarz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace