Joanna Seybert
How Judge Seybert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a consumer-protection mislabeling case she credits the ordinary-consumer understanding of a label term over the defendant's technical reading, finding reliance plausibly pled at the 12(b)(6) stage.
“regular consumers are likely to read that the Product is 'Certified Compostable' and to understand that term as meaning the Product is, in fact, capable of being composted either at home or in an appropriate facility. Consequently, Plaintiffs have plausibly pled reasonable and justified reliance upon Defendant's representations.”
On a summary-judgment record, a genuine factual dispute over the employer's proffered non-discriminatory explanation defeats the motion; she sends credibility/pretext questions to trial rather than resolving them on the papers.
“The proffered explanations, and the Defendants' responses, are in factual dispute and can only be resolved at trial. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces the R&R objection rules strictly: only specific objections trigger de novo review; general or perfunctory objections (a rehash of the original papers) get clear-error review only.
“general objections, or 'objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original papers will not suffice to invoke de novo review.'”
She polices subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even on an unopposed default-judgment motion a magistrate had recommended granting -- declining to enter judgment until the diversity amount-in-controversy is established.
“Plaintiff... is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, it seems that the amount in controversy in this action is well below the $75,000 threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction.”
Cautions
Do not try to add new facts or theories through an opposition brief, and do not bury a leave-to-amend request -- she will not amend a complaint via opposition and will deny leave to amend that was never properly requested.
“Plaintiff did not assert these allegations in the Complaint, and it cannot now 'amend [its] complaint by asserting new facts or theories for the first time in opposition to [a] motion to dismiss.'”
Refusing a Rule 4(d) request to waive service because you think the suit is meritless is not good cause, and misstating the procedural record (e.g. when an EEOC charge was filed) draws a warning about Rule 11.
“Credit Suisse... refused to waive service because it believes Plaintiff's suit is meritless. Of course, this is not a justifiable reason to refuse a waiver request.”
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 = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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 forgoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with regard to her Title VII and ADEA claims, except for those claims against the individual Defendants, which remain DISMISSED. Additionally, her claims, aside from her claims under Title VII and the ADEA, remain DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen the case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Nussbaum's motions for reconsideration and remand are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Nussbaum v. White, No. 09-CV-2025 is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk.”
“His motion for a default judgment (Docket Entry 4) is DENIED with leave to renew pending the Court's decision concerning subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 44) is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, in the absence of clear error, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED, the R&R (ECF No. 54) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff's Remand Motion (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims for Breach of Implied Warranty (Count IV), and Unjust Enrichment (Count VI) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but Plaintiffs' remaining claims survive said motion.”
“For the stated reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action in the Complaint (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 191 days (N = 4).
Senior E.D.N.Y. district judge sitting in Central Islip (Long Island; suffix 'JS'), still actively assigned despite senior status (2014). The sampled dockets are dominated by (a) a substantial criminal docket (e.g. United States v. James 2:19-cr-00382, United States v. Runner 2:18-cr-00578, United States v. Baez 2:17-cr-00300, United States v. Vigil-Castro 2:24-cr-00442) and (b) a steady stream of 28 U.S.C. 2255 prisoner petitions to vacate sentence (Blackman, Smith, Gararza, Jean, Michel, Hardy v. United States) that pair with that criminal docket, plus (c) consumer/false-advertising putative class actions (Carrasco v. Arizona Beverages USA, 195 Contract Product Liability; Natale v. Earth Rated) and (d) Strike 3 Holdings BitTorrent copyright cases. Mix is qualitative this build (case-level metadata only).