Kari A. Dooley
How Judge Dooley rules, drawn from 46 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dooley
Kari Anne Dooley is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Dooley received a commission on September 13, 2018.
Judge Dooley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dooley, 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
Disputed authentication of documents attached to dispositive motions calls for appropriate affidavits.
“to the extent there is a known dispute as to the identification or authentication of any document, appropriate affidavits should be submitted.”
Conferences
Request rescheduling by motion, propose three dates available to all counsel, and state the other side’s position if the motion is not joint.
“Requests to reschedule scheduled court proceedings, including telephonic conferences, should be made by motion. Counsel should identify three (3) alternative dates on which counsel for all parties are available.”
Trial
Pre-mark civil exhibits with plaintiff exhibits starting at 1 and defendant exhibits starting at 500.
“The Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be numbered sequentially beginning with the Number One (1). The Defendant’s exhibits shall be numbered sequentially beginning with the Number Five Hundred (500).”
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 Dooley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hurley, conflicting agency explanations for First Step Act credits and a release date that might pass before a merits decision supported temporary home confinement pending the habeas case. Dooley did not decide the petition’s merits in that order.
“Respondent does not explain how refusing placement in an RRC under the Second Chance Act implicates Petitioner’s participation and entitlement to time credits under the FSA.”
In Rammohan, found detailed confidential witness accounts, rising inventory, and weaker cash flow together sufficient to support a plausible inference that public statements about product demand were misleading; competing explanations were left for later stages.
“these arguments are better made on summary judgment or to a jury.”
Procedural preferences
In Bart, Dooley reviewed the evidence supporting an unopposed summary judgment motion on its merits before entering judgment; a missed opposition deadline did not itself decide the motion.
“Even where a party has not responded to a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant does not ‘risk a default judgment.’”
In the later Bart order, Dooley set aside the judgment so the court could consider a late opposition. She treated counsel’s calendaring failure as serious but weighed the other excusable neglect factors, including prompt filing and limited prejudice.
“the other Pioneer factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff relief from judgment so that the Court can consider her opposition to the motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
In Shouq, electronic acceptance of a conspicuous driver agreement supported arbitration. Dooley enforced its delegation clause because the driver challenged the arbitration provision generally without specifically attacking the delegation clause.
“Plaintiff has not lodged a specific attack on the Delegation Clause itself”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Yale's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The dismissal of Counts Three is without prejudice to the filing of an Amended Complaint as detailed above. The dismissal of Counts One (FFCRA and Cares Act), Two (ACA), Four (ERISA), Five (unjust enrichment), Six (breach of contract), Six (sic) (CUIPA), and Seven (CUTPA) are with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. The motion for the entry of a default (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED.”
“The motion for the entry of a default (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. A default shall enter against the Plaintiff as to Defendants' counterclaims.”
“The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and close this case.”
“the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is DENIED”
“the motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-open this case.”
“As explained above, Defendant Mebane's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Count One (against Mebane) and DENIED as to Count Two.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 105, is DENIED as to Quigley's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim related to the April 26, 2018 cell extraction against defendants Rivera, Roy, Behm, Velazquez, and Peart and GRANTED as to all other claims.”
“First Advantage's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED.”
“In light of this ruling, by agreement of the parties, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' motion in limine, ECF No. 186, is DENIED”
“and Defendants' motion in limine, ECF No. 187, is GRANTED.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons the motion to suppress is DENIED.”
“For this reason and for all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, no evidentiary hearing is necessary, and the petition is DISMISSED. (ECF No. 1)”
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 | 10 |
| 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 | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 10 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 38 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 15 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 7 |
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 Dooley: 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 Dooley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dooley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dooley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace