Sarala V. Nagala
How Judge Nagala rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Nagala
Sarala Vidya Nagala is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Nagala received a commission on November 2, 2021.
Judge Nagala's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Nagala, 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
Do not file letter briefs or sur-reply briefs; use a formal motion for relief.
“Judge Nagala does not allow letter briefs or sur-reply briefs. In lieu of filing a letter brief, a party should file a formal motion.”
Conferences
Use actual calendar dates in Rule 26(f) reports.
“Rule 26(f) Reports must include actual deadline dates, even if such deadlines are tied to earlier events in a case.”
Trial
File in limine motions with the joint trial memorandum.
“Judge Nagala’s Instructions for Joint Trial Memorandum require the parties to file motions in limine at the time the Joint Trial Memorandum is submitted.”
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 Nagala decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In LifeVoxel, a signed employment agreement and initials beside the arbitration provision established assent to arbitrate. Nagala compelled arbitration on that record.
“Defendant specifically initialed below the arbitration provision.”
In Martin, conflicting affidavits and deposition testimony about household residency left a credibility question for trial, preventing summary judgment on the insurance coverage claim.
“where the same witness makes conflicting statements at different points in time, he creates a credibility dispute that must be left to a jury to resolve.”
Procedural preferences
In Ibbison, Nagala denied default judgment despite repeated defense delays, but denied the defendants’ late motion to dismiss without leave to refile and required advance extension requests for future deadlines.
“The Court chooses to impose the sanction of denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF No. 112 without leave to refile.”
Cautions
In Linders, Nagala declined to compel arbitration because the website did not make clear that completing a ticket purchase signified assent to its linked terms. The same ruling rejected the proposed class action waiver.
“the interface here did not clearly warn customers that clicking the ‘Continue’ button and proceeding through the purchase process would constitute acceptance of the Terms.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons described herein, VZ United's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“For the reasons described herein, Integon's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' direct action claim (Count One), and GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' bad faith claim (Count Two).”
“Plaintiffs' motion for an order dismissing Count Two is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons described herein, Defendant's pending motion to dismiss at ECF No. 30 is GRANTED in part as to Count Five of Plaintiff's complaint and DENIED in all other respects.”
“For these reasons, the Government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“The Court also DENIES as moot CDHP's and DDS's motions to dismiss.”
“For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Defendant's counterclaims for negligence and negligence per se pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).”
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's second motion for a TRO, and it will hold in abeyance Plaintiff's first motion for a preliminary injunction until the scheduled evidentiary hearing.”
“For these reasons, Southern's and Nova's motions for reconsideration are denied in their entirety.”
“For these reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied.”
“Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is therefore denied.”
“For the reasons described above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's third amended complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons described herein, Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED in part, insofar as Defendant is ordered to arbitrate in accordance with the agreement between the parties pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4, and DENIED in part, insofar as Plaintiff requests the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 5.”
“For the reasons described herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, ECF No. 20, 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 | 5 |
| 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
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 Nagala: 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 Nagala with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Nagala, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Nagala's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace