Michael E. Farbiarz
How Judge Farbiarz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On unsettled questions of state law in diversity, makes an explicit Erie prediction and, for standard-form insurance contracts, follows the national consensus of sister jurisdictions plus the contract's plain meaning -- and stresses that the federal court should reason using the SAME interpretive approach the state supreme court would itself use, because the road taken influences the destination reached.
“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.”
Procedural preferences
Once the federal 'anchor' claim is eliminated, declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction and remands the state-law claims -- and is unmoved by the argument that the parties already completed federal summary-judgment briefing, because N.J.'s Brill standard is in lockstep with the federal one and the work transfers to state court. A defendant who waits until after fact discovery to file a purely-legal dispositive motion cannot then complain that the resulting remand comes too late.
“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
Enforces the reply-brief waiver rule: an argument raised meaningfully for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered, and a movant who cites no supporting authority has not carried its burden.
“this argument was only meaningfully raised in the reply brief. ... So the Court will not consider it here. ... They have not carried their burden.”
Writes in a distinctive, deliberately plain style -- short declarative sentences, numbered/sectioned reasoning, and lay restatements of the facts ('A worker was hurt on the job, and sued in state court.') -- which makes his orders unusually easy to parse for the controlling holding.
“A worker was hurt on the job, and sued in state court. In federal court, one insurance company then sued another --- to make the second insurance company provide certain coverage related to the worker's lawsuit. Both companies now move for summary judgment.”
On a Monell claim, demands specifics: conclusory 'policy and practice' allegations are dismissed; a plaintiff must identify an official proclamation by a final policymaker OR a custom 'so well-settled and permanent as to virtually constitute law.' But note the nuance -- where the very thing challenged is a municipal ORDINANCE's constitutionality, no separate policy need be pleaded because 'the ordinance is the policy.'
“The allegations here are likewise too conclusory to survive the Defendants' motion to dismiss.”
Reply-brief waiver (a recurring D.N.J.-wide theme; cf. Chesler and Kugler): an argument or authority developed for the first time in a reply brief is generally not considered, because the opponent had no opportunity to respond.
“arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs are not generally considered.”
Default judgment as to damages requires a 'sum certain' (or a sum made certain by computation); internally contradictory or double-counted damages figures defeat entry even against a non-appearing defendant, and the court will not paper over facts that cannot all be true.
“There is no way to calculate to a 'sum certain' how much the Plaintiff was underpaid without first knowing what the Plaintiff was paid. And as to that, the Plaintiff has not been consistent.”
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 = 10 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 4Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | 70% granted |
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment 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.
“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.”
“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.”
“OPINION AND ORDER denying Defendants' 11 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal following jurisdictional discovery. Signed by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz”
“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.”
“The motion for summary judgment at ECF 73 is denied.”