I can think of few, if any, tactics that yield so much for so small an investment of time and effort. Before issue is joined, one should have as complete a picture of one’s client’s case as this imperfect world affords, and at least an inkling of the adversary’s likely lines of attack. Under Our Fair State’s Civil Practice Law & Rules, a statutory time limit for such motions is fixed, subject to judicial shortening. Rule 121(b) is broader, of course. Both hinge upon joinder (petition and answer served and filed).

As I’ve often said, summary J gives you discovery of what the judge thinks. It’s well to know if the lion will bite when you stick your little finger in its mouth, rather than your head.

Diversified Solutions Risk Management Inc, et al., Docket No. 16438-23, filed 8/10/26 is an attempt to reargue denied partial summary J, so it looks like wasted motion.

Except.

Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins definitively shuts down two (count ’em, two) legal arguments, substantive due process (trying to collect same deficiencies from two commonly owned entities) and separable transaction, but leaves a third (common ownership) untouched because insufficiently explained in the motion. So here’s a blueprint for one’s post-trial memo; what to preserve for appeal and what to stress.

Finally, economic substance and economic reality must be left for trial. With trial coming up in a month, here is where to spend that precious trial prep.

I’ll always be a fan of summary J.