Zahid N. Quraishi
How Judge Quraishi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage he declines to resolve fact-bound standing challenges to an assignee's antitrust standing (here, the temporal scope of an assignment of claims), treating them as premature and better suited to class certification (typicality under Rule 23) rather than a 12(b)(6) motion.
“the nuanced concern Amarin raises with respect to the alignment of the scope of relief KPH seeks and its rights under the Assignment are better suited to a motion for class certification, particularly the 'typicality' consideration under Rule 23. Accordingly, the Court will deny this portion of the Motion as premature.”
Gives a valid forum-selection clause controlling weight even in a non-negotiated/adhesion employment contract: it is set aside only for fraud/overreaching or a 'strong showing' the chosen forum is so gravely inconvenient as to deprive a party of his day in court, and under Atlantic Marine the private-interest factors are deemed to favor the selected forum, leaving only public factors for the 1404(a) transfer analysis.
“a forum selection clause is presumptively valid and should be enforced unless it is established that: (i) it is a result of fraud or overreaching; (ii) enforcement would violate a strong public policy of the forum; or (iii) enforcement would ... result in litigation in a jurisdiction so seriously inconvenient as to be unreasonable.”
Procedural preferences
Rigorously enforces Article III standing at summary judgment, distinguishing the lenient pleading stage: organizational standing needs concrete evidence of resources diverted OUTSIDE the group's normal operations (not just hours spent on its own agenda), and associational standing requires identifying at least one specific injured member -- generic 'we have ~60 members in NJ' will not do, and a membership-privilege claim must be evidentially supported.
“because ERIC has failed to identify any member who will suffer harm, ERIC lacks associational standing... Summers and Third Circuit precedent require the identification of a member who has suffered or will suffer harm in cases brought by an association on behalf of its members.”
In civil rights cases he holds that leave to amend must be given where a complaint's deficiency could be cured, and will use Rule 59(e) to reopen a dismissal that inadvertently became a final judgment without a leave-to-amend window.
“the Third Circuit has held that, in civil rights cases, 'leave to amend must be given' where 'a deficiency in a complaint could be cured by amendment but leave to amend is not sought.'”
On a Rule 59(e) reconsideration he will candidly acknowledge his own legal error but still deny relief unless correcting it would change the result -- reconsideration is to fix outcome-determinative manifest error, not to relitigate. (Here he conceded he wrongly relied on Williamson County's overruled exhaustion prong, but the Takings claim still failed the independent finality/ripeness prong.)
“The issue that remains is whether the prior legal error will alter the disposition of this matter. ... Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that the correction of the Court's legal error would have 'alter[ed] the disposition of this matter.'”
Cautions
When he dismisses the federal claims (or they otherwise drop out), he declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law counts and remands them to state court under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) rather than deciding them.
“ORDERED that Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X against State of New Jersey are remanded to state court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3)”
Declines to expand state common-law tort beyond its recognized boundaries: NJ unfair competition is 'flexible and elastic' but limited to passing off, unprivileged imitation, and tortious interference, and he will not create a new category (e.g. a wage-and-hour 'illegal employee compensation' theory) -- nor defer to a state agency's reading of a FEDERAL statute. On the IRA Drug Price Negotiation Program he sided with the government, holding participation voluntary (no per se Takings under Horne), the price-setting commercial conduct (no Compelled Speech), and the excise-tax challenge jurisdictionally barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
“the tort of unfair competition is, thus far, limited to the following three broad categories of behavior: '(1) the passing off of [another's commercial] goods or services; (2) unprivileged imitation; and (3) tortious interference.'”
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 = 9 |
Granted: 4Granted in part: 2Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 8 |
Granted: 4Granted in part: 2Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion in limine N = 2 |
Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on the pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to alter amend judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to transfer venue N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration 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.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Amarin's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30).”
“The Court will therefore GRANT Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“ERIC lacks Article III standing. The Court will therefore GRANT Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY ERIC's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“ORDERED that the Edison Motion (ECF No. 2) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that the State Motion (ECF No. 20) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that the Middlesex Motion (ECF No. 12) is hereby GRANTED and that all counts against Defendant County of Middlesex are hereby dismissed with prejudice”
“to prevent a manifest injustice, and, in line with the practice set forth in Borelli, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and amend the July 18, 2023 Order to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint”
“Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) is hereby GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 98) is hereby DENIED as moot and the Third-Party Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 97) is hereby GRANTED”
“Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 102) is hereby GRANTED with respect to sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel and DENIED with respect to sanctions against Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 99) is hereby DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Counts One and Four as to Defendant Trenton Police Department ... DENIED on Counts One and Four as to Defendants Ernest Parrey Jr. [the individual officers] ... and Defendant City of Trenton; Summary Judgment on Counts Two and Three is GRANTED”
“the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims in Counts Two, Four, and Six, and Pierce doctrine claim in Count Seven ... The Court will DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the remaining claims”
“the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative Motion to Transfer.”
“the private and public interest factors easily favor New Jersey as a forum for the parties' dispute. The Court will therefore deny the portion of Defendant's motion made under Section 1404(a).”
“Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that the correction of the Court's legal error would have 'alter[ed] the disposition of this matter.' ... Reconsideration is therefore inappropriate.”
“the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims (First Claim for Relief) with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that all Counts against the AAA are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ... Counts II, III, IV, V, VII, XII, XIV, XV against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ... Counts I, VI, VIII, IX-XI, XIII are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“the Court will GRANT Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24)”
“and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18).”