Alvin W. Thompson
How Judge Thompson rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Thompson
Alvin W. Thompson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Thompson received a commission on October 11, 1994. Judge Thompson assumed senior status on August 31, 2018.
Judge Thompson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Thompson, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Request permission by motion and explain the basis before filing a sur-reply.
“Judge Thompson requires that counsel file a motion for permission to file a sur-reply brief, setting forth the basis for filing such a brief.”
Trial
Resolve pending motions before the joint trial memorandum and file in limine motions with it.
“Judge Thompson instructs parties to dispose of all motions before filing their joint trial memorandum. Any motions in limine should be filed with the trial memorandum.”
Trial
Pre-mark trial exhibits and submit them in binders at least three days before trial.
“Judge Thompson requires that counsel pre-mark all their exhibits and submit them to him in binders at least three days before trial.”
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 Thompson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the firefighters’ product liability case, a supported preliminary showing of defendants’ Connecticut contacts led Thompson to allow jurisdictional discovery and permit renewed personal jurisdiction motions afterward.
“the plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing at this time with respect to the reasonableness of exercising personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants.”
Procedural preferences
In Corley, Thompson denied a Rule 56(d) request made to find a supporting malpractice expert after inadequate expert disclosures. The plaintiff had not supplied the required affidavit or shown prior discovery efforts.
“That is not a proper ground for relief under Rule 56(d).”
In Petaway, Thompson remanded after several served defendants filed their consent to removal outside the 30 day period. He treated timely consent by each defendant as necessary when no exception to the rule of unanimity applied.
“because the defendants did not timely comply with the rule of unanimity, this case must be remanded to state court.”
Cautions
In LEGO v. Zuru, success on the federal intellectual property claims did not itself establish the separate Connecticut unfair trade practices claim. Thompson denied that portion of LEGO’s summary judgment motion because its briefing did not establish each required element.
“LEGO has failed to meet its initial burden at the summary judgment stage, and its motion for summary judgment on the CUTPA claim is being denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant and close this case.”
“Therefore, the plaintiff's request for relief under Rule 56(d) should be denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the defendant's motion [to] dismiss (ECF No. 33) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 13) is hereby DENIED. ... Therefore, the motion to dismiss is being denied.”
“The Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss at ECF Nos. 248, 250, 251, 253, and 255 are hereby DENIED in part without prejudice to renewal, i.e., only insofar as they seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“The plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery (ECF No. 293) is hereby GRANTED. The plaintiffs and the Moving Defendants have been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish, who will set a schedule for jurisdictional discovery.”
“LEGO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 245) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is being denied with respect to Count VII (the CUTPA claim) and being granted in all other respects.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 237), filed by Zuru Inc., is hereby DENIED.”
“Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 64) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant O'Toole's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 20) and Defendant Sevin's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No. 22) are hereby GRANTED.”
“the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 104) is hereby GRANTED with respect to the Second and Fourth Counts, and DENIED with respect to the First, Third, Fifth and Sixth Counts.”
“the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is hereby GRANTED.”
“the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand to State Court (Doc. No. 14) is hereby DENIED”
“the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12) is hereby GRANTED. This case is dismissed with respect to all the defendants, but the plaintiff is granted leave to replead, within 30 days”
“the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 17] is hereby DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) is hereby GRANTED.”
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 15 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, not for Judge Thompson: 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 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 227 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 833 | 5.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 401 | 13.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 36.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,471 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,501 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,468 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,598 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,456 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,683 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,877 | 9.2 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 Thompson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Thompson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Thompson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace