Susan Davis Wigenton
How Judge Wigenton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Disputes over an insurer's administration/payment of State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) benefits must be run through the plan's administrative appeal procedures and the State Health Benefits Commission before suit; failure to exhaust deprives the court of jurisdiction even when the complaint is framed as a HIPAA records request.
“Given the above regulations of the SHBP and the NJ Direct Plan's terms, Modern is required to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing an action.”
Procedural preferences
Reconsideration is 'an extremely limited procedural vehicle' granted sparingly; mere disagreement with the court's analysis of facts and cases it already considered is not a ground -- that belongs in the appellate process.
“Asking this Court to 'rethink' its holding is not an appropriate basis upon which to seek reconsideration.”
Rule 54(b) certification of a partial final judgment is 'the exception, not the rule'; the court is conservative about it and will deny where the adjudicated claims and pending counterclaims rest on substantially overlapping operative facts, to avoid piecemeal appellate review.
“If Plaintiff were permitted to appeal his claims now, there is a possibility that the Third Circuit would have to revisit the same issues on a future appeal... Because there is no basis for the extraordinary relief sought, Plaintiff's motion is denied.”
Cautions
A Section 1983 Monell claim against a municipality is dismissed when the complaint pleads only generalized, conclusory descriptions of 'long-standing customs/policies' without specific factual allegations identifying the policy that caused the violation.
“Rather, Plaintiff relies on a lengthy list of alleged policies that are nothing more than generalized conclusory statements without any factual support... This is insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6).”
Expects strict adherence to filing deadlines; admonished counsel on the record for an untimely, unexcused opposition brief, and separately cautioned counsel for sloppy redactions that exposed a minor's and her parents' identities.
“Plaintiff's counsel is reminded that filing deadlines are not optional and must be adhered to in the future.”
On a Section 1983 substantive-due-process failure-to-protect claim, ordinary negligence is not enough; the plaintiff must show conduct 'so ill-conceived or malicious that it shocks the conscience' (deliberate indifference), and minor, non-serious injuries undercut the claim.
“Nothing about Defendant's conduct was 'so ill-conceived or malicious that it shocks the conscience.'”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for entry of final 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.
“Without Modern's exhaustion of its administrative remedies, this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear this dispute and the Complaint must be dismissed.”
“There are no specific factual allegations, however, as to what those policies, procedures, or practices are... This is insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6). Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Because there is no basis for the extraordinary relief sought, Plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“Given these existing issues of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate at this juncture. The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment will be denied and this matter remanded with instructions to hold a due process hearing”
“the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are DENIED and this matter REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for a due process hearing.”
“Regardless of the standard... Defendant's actions were, at best, negligent and do not rise to the level of 'deliberate indifference.'... For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”