Sharon A. King
How Judge King rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge King
Sharon A. King was appointed a United States magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey on April 22, 2021. Before joining the bench, she practiced civil rights law at King & King in Woodbury, New Jersey.
Judge King's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge King, 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
Conferences
Unless directed otherwise, clients with full settlement authority must attend settlement conferences in person.
“Unless specifically instructed otherwise by the Court, clients with full settlement authority are required to appear in person at the settlement conference.”
Conferences
Email a settlement memorandum of no more than five pages at least three business days before the conference.
“Each party shall submit a settlement memorandum by email at least three (3) business days before the scheduled settlement conference. The memorandum should not exceed five (5) pages in length, including exhibits.”
Sealing
Mail a courtesy copy of a document sought to be sealed with proposed redactions highlighted.
“A courtesy copy of any document sought to be sealed should also be mailed to chambers with the proposed redactions highlighted to facilitate the Court’s review.”
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 King decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Grieco v. Philadelphia Sign, King denied a late amendment because the plaintiff relied on Rule 15 in his motion and first addressed Rule 16's good cause requirement in reply, forfeiting that argument.
“As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff forfeited any argument he could have raised under Rule 16.”
In Philadelphia Marine Trade Association v. Stocklin & Sons, King denied leave to add a proposed defendant to an ERISA case. She found the new allegation conclusory and contradicted by documents the plaintiffs relied on in seeking amendment, making the proposed claim futile.
“Were these documents to be included as attachments to the proposed amendment, the documents themselves would render Plaintiffs' claims directed at Ann Stocklin therein futile.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is respectfully recommended that the Government's petition be GRANTED and that an order be issued requiring Roderick Jefferson to appear to provide sworn oral testimony pursuant to CID No. NJ-2024-113.”
“it is respectfully recommended that Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 43] is DENIED. ... Plaintiff forfeited any argument he could have raised under Rule 16. ... For this sole reason, the motion will be denied.”
“the Court finds the proposed amendment is futile and will deny Plaintiffs' motion. ... Plaintiffs' motion to amend [ECF No. 19] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 152] is DENIED. ... Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that the Court made a 'clear error of law' ... [n]or have they demonstrated that a 'manifest injustice' will result.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2023, that Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve Defendant Eric Nault in accordance with this Opinion and Order by September 11, 2023.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2025, that Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 97, 102] are DENIED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel [ECF Nos. 126, 127] are DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2024, that Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's appearance at a presurgical independent medical examination [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2024, that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 81] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further ORDERED that, insofar as Defendant seeks an award of reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, against Plaintiffs' expert, the motion is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that, insofar as Defendant seeks an award of reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, against Plaintiffs' counsel, the motion is GRANTED”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2023, that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Draft Report of Defendant First Student, Inc.'s Testifying Expert [ECF No. 228] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Cross-Motion for a Protective Order [ECF No. 235] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 16th day of March 2024, that Plaintiffs' First Motion for Sanctions and First Motion for Default Judgement as to False Statements in Discovery [ECF No. 280] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2022, that Plaintiff's ‘Motion for Leave to Serve a Third-Party Subpoena Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference Subject to a Protective Order’ [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED”
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
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 King: 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 King with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge King, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge King's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace