Charlotte Noelle Sweeney
How Judge Sweeney rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sweeney
Charlotte Noelle Sweeney is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Sweeney received a commission on July 18, 2022.
Judge Sweeney's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sweeney, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Order Regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Motions ↗
- Civil Standing Order ↗
- Criminal Practice Standards ↗
- Uniform Civil Practice Standards ↗
Key rules
Filing
Jointly file a chart of undisputed material facts three business days before the hearing.
“No later than three business days prior to the hearing, the Parties shall jointly file a chart of undisputed material facts.”
Motions
Within ten days after discovery closes, email chambers and copy opposing counsel before moving for summary judgment.
“No later than 10 days after the close of discovery, a party seeking to file a motion for summary judgment must email Chambers, copying opposing counsel”
Motions
A summary judgment motion filed without the standing order procedures will be stricken.
“Motions for summary judgment filed without adhering to the procedures in this standing order or Civ. Practice Standard 7.1D will be stricken for noncompliance.”
Motions
In criminal cases, confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and include their position.
“The moving party is directed to confer with opposing counsel (and co-defendant counsel if applicable) before filing any motion and include the opposing party’s position in the motion.”
Conferences
File the proposed final pretrial order seven days before the conference and email chambers an editable Word copy.
“the parties shall submit their proposed Final Pretrial Order no later than seven days before the date of the Final Pretrial Conference. The proposed Final Pretrial Order should be filed in CM/ECF and submitted electronically in editable (Word) format directly to Chambers”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Sweeney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Salama’s sanctions dispute, she adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation with modifications and granted the sanctions motion in part.
“the Court ADOPTS WITH MODIFICATIONS, as outlined above, Magistrate Judge Braswell's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 89, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 61.”
In an intimate-image disclosure action, allegations of ongoing prohibited disclosure and serious privacy harm supported pseudonym protection and an ex parte temporary restraining order without advance notice.
“Given this, and in light of Plaintiff’s representation that Defendant has already engaged in the same statutorily prohibited conduct that Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin, the Court finds good cause to excuse the notice requirement in Rule 65(b)(1)(B).”
Procedural preferences
In Inen’s employment case, she granted summary judgment on disability-discrimination and retaliation claims while allowing the failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed.
“ORDERED: [23] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; granted as to the discrimination claim based on disability and retaliation, denied as to the failure to accommodate claim.”
Cautions
In a 2023 postjudgment order, she denied the plaintiff's combined requests to vacate the judgment, recuse both judges, amend the complaint, and instruct the defendants.
“Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Revocation of Final Judgement [sic], Recusal of Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge, Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, and Request for Advisement to Defendants is DENIED in its entirety (ECF No. 77).”
Emergency temporary-restraint requests require prospective, non-speculative harm; a motion based on completed past events does not establish that element.
“Plaintiffs’ motion is premised on past events. That’s improper for securing a TRO.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Revocation of Final Judgement [sic], Recusal of Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge, Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, and Request for Advisement to Defendants is DENIED in its entirety (ECF No. 77).”
“ORDERED: [52] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“ORDERED: [23] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; granted as to the discrimination claim based on disability and retaliation, denied as to the failure to accommodate claim.”
“the Court ADOPTS WITH MODIFICATIONS, as outlined above, Magistrate Judge Braswell's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 89, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 61.”
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED”
“the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Under a Pseudonym With Incorporated Authority, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate (Ex Parte) Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Certified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). ECF No. 4.”
“It likewise DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ pending motions to reassign this case”
“The Court REVERSES IN PART the Recommendation, and therefore GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 45.”
“Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting Court-Authorized Notice. ECF No. 79, are almost entirely OVERRULED. They are SUSTAINED only as to Defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge’s determination that a 90-day opt-in period is proper.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Stay Production of Class List and Dissemination of Notice Pending Ruling on Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Re: Conditional Certification, ECF No. 80, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 48, is DENIED.”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 62.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 8th Supplemental Expert Disclosures is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Two terminated civil-case durations are available, a small set for a judge commissioned in 2022. The contested cases reviewed were reassigned to her on appointment and decided on the merits, so they reflect her rulings even though they were filed shortly before she took the bench.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Colorado, not for Judge Sweeney: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 497 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,076 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 63 | 26.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 33 | 39.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,704 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,560 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,614 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,637 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,637 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,577 | 7.5 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Sweeney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sweeney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sweeney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace