Renée Marie Bumb
How Judge Bumb rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bumb
Renée Marie Bumb is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Bumb received a commission on June 12, 2006.
Judge Bumb's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bumb, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Provide one courtesy copy of supporting briefs, without exhibits, unless the court directs otherwise.
“the parties shall provide one (1) courtesy copy of their supporting briefs only; courtesy copies of all exhibits and other supporting papers shall be filed electronically on CM/ECF only.”
Motions
Request a pre-motion conference by a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages before the listed pleading, remand, and venue motions.
“a party must submit a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, requesting a pre-motion conference.”
Motions
Respond to a pre-motion letter within five business days in no more than three single-spaced pages.
“Within five (5) business days after receipt of this letter, all adversaries must submit a written response, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages.”
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 Bumb decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Under the NJAA, an arbitration award is presumed valid and vacatur is limited to the enumerated statutory grounds (corruption/fraud/misconduct); 'manifest disregard for the law' is not a viable basis under New Jersey law.
“'Manifest disregard for the law' is not among the grounds enumerated in the statute. See N.J.S.A. § 2A:23B-23. Rather, grounds for vacatur are limited to corruption, fraud, or other forms of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator.”
Procedural preferences
In Godoy v. TD Bank, Bumb dismissed a self-represented plaintiff's complaint without prejudice because it did not clearly state the court's jurisdiction or the claims as Rule 8 requires; she allowed amendment.
“Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide the ‘short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction’ and ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.”
Rule 60(b) reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate the court's prior conclusions; a motion that merely re-hashes earlier arguments is denied.
“Rule 60(b) is not an appropriate vehicle to relitigate the Court's prior conclusions. The motion is therefore denied.”
In Pella v. Atlantic County Department of Family and Community Development, Bumb denied consolidation because the two federal cases duplicated each other and the earlier action was being dismissed.
“the Court will dismiss the earlier filed case and there is no need to consolidate.”
In Banner Life, Bumb allowed the insurer to deposit proceeds but left the validity of a beneficiary form for the probate court to determine while limiting the federal injunction to competing claims to the policy funds.
“However, the Court does not restrain the parties from litigating the validity of the 2025 BDF in the Probate Action”
Cautions
On NJLAD claims, individual aiding-and-abetting liability cannot exist where the employer is not found liable, but a hostile-work-environment claim survives summary judgment where the record is replete with disputed facts.
“the NJLAD does not provide for individual liability for aiding and abetting if the employer is not found liable.”
On a fee application the court conducts a line-by-line review only if the opposing party lodges a sufficiently specific objection; a non-objecting opponent forfeits searching review.
“Because Diskriter has not met its initial burden in providing any opposition to Virtua's proposed award, the Court is not required to 'go line by line' through Virtua's billing records”
For a Social Security attorney-fee request, the court required a record identifying who performed the billed work and the client’s fee agreement, denying the application without prejudice when those materials were missing.
“But most concerning to the Court is the absence of an engagement letter or fee agreement on the docket.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“summary judgment will be granted in favor of Morgan with respect to (1) disparate treatment and discriminatory discharge; (2) retaliation; (3) aiding and abetting; and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Morgan's motion for summary judgment will be denied with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims under the NJLAD and Title VII.”
“Peek will be granted summary judgment on (1) disparate treatment and discriminatory discharge and the aiding and abetting thereof; (2) retaliation and the aiding and abetting thereof; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and his motion will be denied with regard to (1) assault and (2) aiding and abetting harassment.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint will be DISMISSED, without prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this Opinion.”
“Plaintiff's request for default will be denied, and Defendants' motions regarding Plaintiff's request, [Dkt. Nos. 13, 15], will be denied as moot.”
“The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion is nothing more than a mere re-hashing of all of the arguments she has already made. Rule 60(b) is not an appropriate vehicle to relitigate the Court's prior conclusions. The motion is therefore denied.”
“Defendants First Service and Iacono's Motion to Dismiss is CONVERTED to a Motion for Summary Judgment”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [Docket No. 114]... is dismissed as moot.”
“Virtua's Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award [Dkt. No. 04] will be GRANTED”
“Diskriter's Second Cross-Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award [Dkt. No. 33] will be DENIED”
“the Court will grant Lavatec's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 61]”
“the Court will deny Christeyns' Motion for Summary Judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the enforceability of the Supply Agreement.”
“the Court hereby finds that Lavatec's Motion to Seal, which is unopposed, satisfies Rule 5.3(c)(2)'s requirements... the Court will grant Lavatec's Motion to Seal.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“the Court DENIES Leavitt's motion to remand (Docket No. 6)”
“GRANTS, in part, Defendants Sky Warrior's and CTFEL's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 4).”
“Mr. Koger's Motion to Dismiss relies solely on his assertions that the factual allegations in the Complaint are untrue. That argument is insufficient at this stage. The Court will therefore deny Mr. Koger's Motion to Dismiss.”
“this new argument, even if accepted as true, does not meet the motion for reconsideration standard outlined above. As a result, the Court will deny Mr. Koger's Motion for Reconsideration.”
“ORDERED that [25] Motion to Strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Sua sponte screening under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of a prisoner's Section 1983 and Section 1985(3) complaint. Bumb granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed most claims, including claims against parole-board members protected by absolute immunity and other claims that failed to state a claim, some with prejudice and some without. No party motion was pending.
“For these reasons, Defendants' motions will be GRANTED, and the Complaint will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [Docket No. 34] will be DENIED.”
“The motion to dismiss Counts Two and Three of the Amended Complaint will be denied, without prejudice. The motion to dismiss Counts Four and Five will be granted, and Counts Four and Five will be dismissed, with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 213 days (N = 7).
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 | 1,159 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1,159 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1,099 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1,023 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 908 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Bumb: 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 Bumb with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bumb, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bumb's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace