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

Michael A. Hammer

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey magistrate 29 signed orders read

How Judge Hammer decides

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

What persuades

On a Rule 45 subpoena motion to compel he works request-by-request, granting compliance where the document is relevant to the operative claim and rejecting a non-party agency's blanket statutory-confidentiality objection -- but channeling any genuinely confidential material through a Paff-style sworn statement and privilege index rather than letting the agency simply withhold.

“because the statute clearly only protects 'information obtained from employers and employees,' a hearing notice is not considered confidential ... Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with his request for production of the hearing notice is hereby GRANTED.”

Signed rulings

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

Custin v. Wirths
2:12-cv-00910-KM-MAH · 2017-02-08
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with his subpoenas [D.E. 146] is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.”

Foster v. Essex County Correctional Facility
2:23-cv-01614-BRM-MAH · 2024-01-23
Involuntary dismissal failure to prosecute (court) Granted

“ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66) is hereby adopted in its entirety ... ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaints in these cases are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Hayes v. Wilkens
2:18-cv-12006-KM-MAH · 2020-12-08
Involuntary dismissal failure to prosecute (court) Granted

“the Report and Recommendation (DE 22) of Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer that the case be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) ... ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is affirmed and adopted ... ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Kaga v. Elsoury
2:19-cv-14814 · 2020-02-25
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“On February 25, 2020, the Honorable Michael A. Hammer, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion.”

Miloseska v. Liberty Travel, Inc.
2:12-cv-06108 · 2012-12-19
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“The Court cannot say with certitude that Plaintiff's claims against Liberty Travel will fail. Therefore, it is improper to find that Liberty Mutual was fraudulently joined. As such, complete diversity is lacking and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.”

Campuzano v. Stanley Black & Decker
2:13-cv-07652 · 2014-03-19
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer's Report and Recommendation ('R&R') concluded that the motion to remand should be granted because complete diversity is lacking, and this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.”

Perry v. Plousis
2:18-cv-11224 · 2020-12-02
Motion to appoint counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“This record does not meet most of the Tabron factors, and, therefore, the Court finds that appointment of pro bono counsel is inappropriate at this time. ... Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel [D.E. 53] is denied without prejudice.”

United States ex rel. McDermott v. Life Source Services, LLC
2:19-cv-15360 · 2022-06-15
Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for an order compelling Relator to amend her pleadings is denied.”

Wisehart v. Wisehart
2:15-cv-02768 · 2018-01-03
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hammer that this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”

Perry v. ADT LLC
2:17-cv-06676 · 2018-01-23
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiff's motion to remand, and remand this matter to the Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County.”

XL Specialty Insurance Co. v. PCS Wireless Warehouse, Inc.
2:18-cv-17210 · 2020-02-28
Motion for leave to file third party complaint (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, PCS's Motion for Leave to File a Third-Party Complaint is granted.”

Watson v. Sunrise Senior Living Services, Inc.
2:10-cv-00230 · 2013-01-08
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part, plaintiff's motion to compel various discovery responses is granted in part, and defendants' cross-motion for a protective order is denied without prejudice.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“plaintiff's motion to compel various discovery responses is granted in part”

Motion for protective order (defendant) Denied

“defendants' cross-motion for a protective order is denied without prejudice.”

Put Judge Hammer's record to work

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

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