🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Karen M. Williams

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

How Judge Williams decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On summary judgment she holds the non-movant to specific, affirmative record evidence and will not let a plaintiff rest on allegations; where there is a genuine factual dispute (e.g. who breached a contract, or when an asset was actually sold) she denies SJ and sends the issue to trial, but where the record is one-sided she grants.

“To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party.”

Applies the NJ discovery rule narrowly: a fraud/contract claim accrues once a reasonable, diligent plaintiff would be alerted to the possibility of a claim -- a defendant's failure to provide statutorily-required documents (K-1 filings) on request is itself the notice event, so claims sat on for years are time-barred.

“the failure of AP Hospitality to provide the form K-1 filings to plaintiffs alerted them of their potential claim... plaintiff's claims arising from the transaction... accrued in 2008, fourteen years before the filing of this action.”

Procedural preferences

Treats Article III standing as a threshold filter even on a Rule 12(c) motion: a plaintiff who is not a party to the contract he sues on lacks standing and is dismissed, while a co-plaintiff who is a party survives where a factual dispute remains.

“Plaintiff Elijah Lewis does not have standing to sue Defendant”

On Daubert/expert challenges she favors admissibility where the expert ties a coherent methodology to the specific product/design at issue, holding that a defendant's critiques of the opinion go to weight and are for cross-examination, not exclusion.

“Defendant MHS' critiques of his opinion can be addressed at trial through cross examination.”

Cautions

On IDEA appeals she applies the deferential modified-de-novo standard and will affirm an ALJ's final decision on summary judgment, particularly where the challenging party fails to substantively oppose; she has also pointedly noted on the record a recurring plaintiffs'-side counsel's sanctioned billing practices.

“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Glass v. United Parcel Services (UPS), et al.
1:19-cv-19839 · 2023-06-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants Lyneer, UPS, and SDI's Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant MHS's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Opinion Testimony are DENIED.”

Motion to exclude (defendant) Denied

“the Court denies Defendant MHS' Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's expert's testimony finding that Plaintiff's expert testimony is sufficient to survive a motion to exclude”

F.V. and M.V. v. Cherry Hill Township Board of Education
1:21-cv-18096 · 2023-03-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Board's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the ALJ's Final Decision is accordingly affirmed.”

Patel v. AP Hospitality, LLC, et al.
1:22-cv-06890 · 2025-09-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Lewis v. Capital One Auto Finance
1:22-cv-04817 · 2023-04-30
Motion for judgment on pleadings (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 8), will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Jansenius v. Holtec International, et al.
1:21-cv-03203 · 2023-09-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying Defendants' 98 and 100 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Karen M. Williams on 9/30/2023.”

Johnson v. The Hanover Insurance Company
1:23-cv-01294 · 2025-05-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For all of the reasons set forth above, Hanover's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

Asomani v. United States of America
1:23-cv-01683 · 2023-03-28
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner's habeas petition shall be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.”

Choice Energy, LLC v. SunSea Energy LLC, et al.
1:20-cv-14139 · 2024-02-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For all of the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for summary judgment is granted, in part, and denied, in part.”

Mantua Township Board of Education v. E.K., on behalf of W.W.
1:22-cv-07496 · 2025-09-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Board's motion, REVERSES the ALJ's decision, and REMANDS this matter to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings.”

Mitchell-Palacio v. FCI Fort Dix (Warden)
1:24-cv-09831 · 2024-10-21
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner's habeas petition will therefore be dismissed as it is premature, unexhausted, and in any event without merit.”

AV Design Services, LLC, et al. v. James M. Durant, et al.
1:19-cv-08688 · 2024-01-31
Motion to vacate arbitration award (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Cross Motion to Vacate and/or Modify Arbitration Award (ECF No. 158) is DENIED”

Motion to confirm arbitration award (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 156) is GRANTED.”

Dykeman v. Fisher, et al.
1:24-cv-07358 · 2024-08-08
Screening (court) Denied

“Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety.”

Put Judge Williams's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Williams actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders and cites them.