Renée Marie Bumb

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 15 signed orders read

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

Liberally construes pro se pleadings but still enforces Rule 8's short-and-plain-statement requirement; a sprawling, undifferentiated complaint that prevents the court from assessing jurisdiction is dismissed (with leave to amend).

“Even construing Plaintiff's Complaint liberally, it suffers from several fatal flaws... Plaintiff's Complaint fails to provide the 'short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction'... 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.”

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”

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 = 9
Granted: 3Granted in part: 2Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 3 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 5
Granted: 1Granted in part: 2Denied: 2 counts only
Motion for reconsideration
N = 2
Denied: 2 counts only
Motions to strike
N = 2
Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 counts only
Request for entry of default
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to confirm arbitration award
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion to vacate arbitration award
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to seal
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motions to remand
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to stay
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to transfer
N = 1
Granted: 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.

Belfort v. Morgan Properties, LLC; Jerry Peek
1:16-cv-05207 · 2018-06-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Godoy v. TD Bank, N.A.
1:17-cv-13149 · 2018-08-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Request for entry of default (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's request for default will be denied, and Defendants' motions regarding Plaintiff's request, [Dkt. Nos. 13, 15], will be denied as moot.”

Smalls v. Riviera Towers Corp.
1:16-cv-00847 · 2018-02-15
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendants First Service and Iacono's Motion to Dismiss is CONVERTED to a Motion for Summary Judgment”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [Docket No. 114]... is dismissed as moot.”

Virtua Health, Inc. v. Diskriter, Inc.
1:19-cv-21266 · 2020-07-27
Motion to confirm arbitration award (plaintiff) Granted

“Virtua's Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award [Dkt. No. 04] will be GRANTED”

Motion to vacate arbitration award (defendant) Denied

“Diskriter's Second Cross-Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award [Dkt. No. 33] will be DENIED”

Selective Insurance Co. of America v. Christeyns Laundry Technology, LLC
1:19-cv-11723 · 2020-10-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant Lavatec's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 61]”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Motion to seal (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Peter v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
1:23-cv-03337 · 2024-01-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Leavitt v. Sky Warrior Bahamas Ltd. d/b/a Baha Mar Casino, et al.
1:24-cv-00886 · 2024-09-24
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES Leavitt's motion to remand (Docket No. 6)”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS, in part, Defendants Sky Warrior's and CTFEL's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 4).”

CHNJ Investors, LLC v. Koger, et al.
1:12-cv-01467 · 2020-04-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Lloyd v. Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, LLC
1:18-cv-09420 · 2019-11-14
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that [25] Motion to Strike is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Alford v. Plumeri, et al.
1:23-cv-20440 · 2024-06-11

Prisoner §1983/§1985(3) complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) sua sponte screening: IFP granted, most claims dismissed (parole-board members absolutely immune; several claims dismissed with/without prejudice for failure to state a claim). No party motion; counts as an order read, excluded from motion stats.

Greco v. Laielli, et al.
1:22-cv-04058 · 2023-02-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, Defendants' motions will be GRANTED, and the Complaint will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Motions to stay (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [Docket No. 34] will be DENIED.”

Rahul Shah, M.D. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (HCSC)
1:16-cv-08803 · 2018-03-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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).