Janet C. Hall
How Judge Hall rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hall
Janet C. Hall is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Hall received a commission on September 18, 1997. Judge Hall assumed senior status on January 21, 2021.
Judge Hall's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hall, 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
Submit a formal motion instead of a letter brief.
“Judge Hall does not favor letter briefs. She prefers that formal motions be filed.”
Conferences
Use actual calendar dates in Rule 26(f) reports.
“Rule 26(f) Reports must include actual deadline dates; deadlines tied to previous events are not acceptable.”
Trial
File in limine motions with the pretrial memorandum.
“She requires that any motions in limine be filed with the pretrial memorandum.”
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 Hall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On ADA/CFEPA disability claims she treats an open-ended, no-return-date leave request as fatal: an employer need not hold a position open indefinitely, so an employee who never supplies a return-to-work date is not a 'qualified individual with a disability' and cannot show discrimination, failure to accommodate, or retaliation.
“The specter of indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation for purposes of disability discrimination.”
Applies the Staub 'cat's-paw' theory to defeat summary judgment: a biased supervisor's input feeding a decisionmaker who did not personally know of the disability is enough to attribute animus to the employer, so 'regarded-as' and associational-discrimination claims survive even where the ultimate decisionmaker disclaims knowledge.
“Associational discrimination does not require that the ultimate decisionmaker know of the disability association; if someone within the chain of decision makers knew and was relied upon, the adverse employment decision is attributed to the employer.”
Procedural preferences
Willing to resolve liability on the clearest counts at summary judgment in a complex multi-count government enforcement case while expressly reserving damages: she grants partial summary judgment on the well-supported deceptive-advertising and per se statutory counts and holds that restitution and civil penalties require separate later briefing and a trial or hearing.
“If the plaintiffs desire monetary restitution or civil penalties, subsequent detailed briefing and a trial or hearing are required to determine the applicability and amount.”
In a summary-judgment dispute, she rejected a motion to strike supporting evidence because the district’s local rule bars that procedure, and Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings.
“This court denies Novo Nordisk’s Motion to Strike under Rule 56(a)(4) as motions to strike supporting evidence are prohibited.”
Cautions
In Getachew v. L&S Investments, Hall denied dismissal of an abuse-of-process claim because the litigation privilege did not bar that claim and the complaint plausibly alleged use of judicial process for an improper purpose.
“The litigation privilege does not, however, apply to abuse of process claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, the court grants the City's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 36, 44). The court dismisses the Amended Complaint without prejudice. ... Any such motion to amend shall be filed not later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Ruling. If no such motion is filed, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, the defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 93) is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, having concluded that Mr. Miller has adequately alleged claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and employment discrimination under Counts One and Two of the Complaint, the court denies the Department's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17).”
“For the reasons discussed above, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 149) is granted. ... The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and close the case.”
“Because the court enters summary judgment for Leprino with respect to all five Counts of the Amended Complaint, the court deems the question of damages moot. Thus, the Motion to Preclude Mr. Kosowsky's testimony is denied as moot.”
“Thus, the court denies this Motion as moot.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 39) is denied.”
Hall certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court concerning the defendant's motion to dismiss in a disability-discrimination suit against a state employer. The punitive-damages and sovereign-immunity argument turned on whether a 2019 amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-104 waived sovereign immunity for CFEPA punitive damages. Rather than resolve the motion, she certified: 'Has the State of Connecticut waived sovereign immunity as to punitive damages in actions brought against the State pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-100, as delineated by 46a-104?' The order shows that where unsettled state law implicates state policy, she gives the state court the first word.
“For the foregoing reasons, Officers Teele and Speranza’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 105) is DENIED.”
“the plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 17), Supplemental Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 19), Motion to Strike Answer (Doc. No. 18), and Motion to Strike Objection (Doc. No. 24) are DENIED.”
“Therefore, Webster Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED, and the case is closed.”
“The Motion is granted insofar as it seeks to compel arbitration and a corresponding stay. The Motion is otherwise denied.”
“Mr. Cojom’s partial Motion for Default Judgment on his wage and hour claims is granted in part, and the court awards $214,293.22 in damages.”
“The Court grants the Mr. Cojom’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. No. 26), and awards $12,600 in attorneys’ fees and $758 in costs.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9) is denied.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, not for Judge Hall: 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 Hall with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hall's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace