Robert N. Chatigny
How Judge Chatigny rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chatigny
Robert N. Chatigny is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Chatigny received a commission on September 29, 1994. Judge Chatigny assumed senior status on December 31, 2016.
Judge Chatigny's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Chatigny, 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 a pre-filing conference before moving to dismiss or for summary judgment.
“Judge Chatigny requires parties to request a pre-filing conference before filing motions to dismiss or for summary judgment.”
Motions
Request a pre-filing conference for summary judgment usually at least 45 days before the discovery deadline.
“A request for a pre-filing conference regarding a motion for summary judgment usually must be made not later than forty-five days before the discovery deadline”
Trial
Attach motions in limine to the joint trial memorandum.
“Counsel should attach motions in limine to the joint trial 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 Chatigny decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Vacates a default judgment when the plaintiff failed to serve the required state official and personal jurisdiction was absent, despite an equitable argument for preserving judgment.
“When, as here, a judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court has no discretion to deny a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4).”
Procedural preferences
Defers a novel state negligence issue until trial where the evidence can clarify the question and parallel federal claims already require further proceedings.
“the issue is one of first impression that can be better decided in light of the evidence presented at trial;”
Cautions
Even after remanding a state products liability case, declines removal costs where the defendant had a plausible basis to seek a federal forum.
“Because the defendant had a plausible basis for removal, no costs will be imposed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the motion for remand is hereby granted. Because the defendant had a plausible basis for removal, no costs will be imposed.”
“Accordingly, the renewed motion for summary judgment is hereby granted. The Clerk may enter judgment in favor of all defendants on all three counts in the TAC.”
“Accordingly, the Detectives' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims is hereby granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk may enter judgment and close the file.”
“Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is hereby denied. The Clerk may enter judgment dismissing the action without prejudice and close the file.”
“Accordingly, Andersen's motion to dismiss count six of the amended complaint is denied and Amazon's motion to dismiss count seven is granted.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted as to counts one and two, granted in part as to count three, and granted as to count four.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (ECF 46) and the motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF 91) are denied.”
“Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 26) is hereby granted. The Clerk may enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings has been denied.”
“Accordingly, petitioner's § 2255 motion is hereby denied. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing the action.”
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 | 22 |
| 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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 22 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 29 | 19 |
| Mar 2025 | 19 | 17 |
| Sep 2024 | 32 | 20 |
| Mar 2024 | 53 | 25 |
| Sep 2023 | 76 | 26 |
| Mar 2023 | 67 | 25 |
| Sep 2022 | 44 | 26 |
| Mar 2022 | 34 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 34 | 21 |
| Mar 2021 | 36 | 18 |
| Sep 2020 | 30 | 17 |
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 Chatigny: 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 Chatigny with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chatigny, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chatigny's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace