Julio M. Fuentes
How Judge Fuentes rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fuentes
Julio M. Fuentes is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Fuentes received a commission on March 9, 2000. Judge Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.
Judge Fuentes's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Fuentes's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
- Third Circuit Motions Practice ↗
- Motions to Exceed the Page or Word Limitations ↗
- Motions for Extensions of Time and Clarification of L.A.R. 110 ↗
- Vacating Option B for Filing of an Appendix ↗
- Reduced Number of Copies of Briefs Required ↗
- Stays in Immigration Cases ↗
- Submission of Audio and Video Files ↗
How Judge Fuentes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Requires ERISA benefit-denial notices to disclose plan-imposed filing deadlines and sets aside the contractual limit when the notice omits it.
“We hold that they must, and that the appropriate remedy for this regulatory violation is to set aside the plan’s time limit and apply the limitations period from the most analogous state-law cause of action—here, New Jersey’s six-year deadline for breach of contract claims.”
In USERRA promotion cases, places objective qualifications in the employer's nondiscriminatory justification rather than in the employee's initial burden.
“plaintiffs need not plead or prove that they are objectively qualified in order to meet their initial burden under USERRA; instead, employers may raise a plaintiff’s lack of qualifications as a non-discriminatory justification for declining to promote the plaintiff, notwithstanding his or her military service.”
Specific, plausible allegations that restricted ticket supply increased secondary-market prices were enough to plead economic injury and Article III standing at the dismissal stage.
“Based on the plausible economic facts pleaded in Finkelman’s amended complaint, we conclude that Finkelman has standing and we therefore have subject matter jurisdiction over this case.”
Procedural preferences
In Athena’s arbitration challenge, he adopted a constructive-knowledge standard and held that Athena waived its objection by waiting until after the award to investigate the arbitrator’s disclosure.
“because Athena had constructive knowledge of Timban’s insufficient disclosure, we conclude that it waived its right to challenge the award.”
Reviews dismissal of shareholder derivative actions for failure to plead demand futility de novo, aligning that review with other pleading-stage dismissals.
“we now hold that a district court’s decision to dismiss a derivative action for failure to plead demand futility is to be reviewed de novo.”
A Rule 60(b) motion that attacks the underlying state conviction rather than a defect in the earlier federal proceeding is treated as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.
“We conclude in this case that the District Court correctly dismissed those claims in Pridgen’s Rule 60(b) motion which sought to invalidate his underlying state conviction because they constituted the equivalent of a second habeas petition.”
An order denying a motion to quash an unexecuted search warrant was not immediately appealable, so the Speech or Debate Clause objection could not be reviewed at that stage.
“Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexecuted search warrant and we dismiss Fattah’s claims under the Speech or Debate Clause.”
A court may bypass a disputed subject-matter-jurisdiction question to dismiss on claim-preclusion grounds because that disposition does not reach the merits anew.
“The District Court was therefore permitted to ‘bypass’ the jurisdictional inquiry in favor of a non-merits dismissal on claim preclusion grounds.”
Cautions
Protects the right to counsel in removal proceedings when newly retained counsel receives too little time to review the record and prepare.
“The primary issue on appeal is whether the IJ’s denial of a 30-day continuance for Freza’s counsel to prepare to adequately represent him violated Freza’s right to counsel. Because we conclude that it did, we will grant Freza’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Stand-alone Title VII and ADA violations cannot be recast under Section 1983 because Congress supplied comprehensive administrative schemes for those employment claims.
“In light of the comprehensive administrative scheme established by Title VII and the ADA, we conclude that these claims, standing alone, may not be asserted under § 1983.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We therefore vacate the BIA’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We accordingly affirm the District Court’s decision dismissing those portions of Pridgen’s Rule 60(b) motion that represented challenges to his state conviction, and were not authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). We also affirm the District Court’s denial of Pridgen’s ‘properly filed’ claim because Pridgen failed to satisfy AEDPA’s limitations period.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we deny Yang’s petition for review. Hence, a fortiori, we reject his application for withholding of removal.”
“Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.”
“Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the BIA or IJ erred in rejecting his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed above, we will deny the petition.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the District Court.”
“Therefore, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.”
“Accordingly, we grant Mahn’s petition for review and vacate the BIA’s order of removal.”
“We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court and remand for assessment of wages owed to McMaster and for additional proceedings relating to the other members of the conditional class.”
“Because Mirza filed his complaint before the expiration of this six-year limitations period, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.”
“Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexecuted search warrant and we dismiss Fattah’s claims under the Speech or Debate Clause.”
“Because we find that Athena waived its right to challenge the arbitration award, we reverse the District Court’s order vacating the award.”
Draft for Judge Fuentes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fuentes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fuentes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace