Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
How Judge Kollar-Kotelly rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kollar-Kotelly
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Kollar-Kotelly received a commission on March 26, 1997. Judge Kollar-Kotelly assumed senior status on February 21, 2023.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Kollar-Kotelly decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Brown v. AFSCME, Kollar-Kotelly found counsel's short delay in filing a motion for leave to amend was a good-faith oversight. She granted leave, denied the motion to strike, and ordered a revised schedule to address prejudice.
“the Court shall DENY the Defendant’s [19] Motion to Strike, GRANT Ms. Brown’s [20] Motion for Leave to Amend”
In Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project v. DHS, Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion to dismiss claims about access to counsel in immigration detention, finding the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded those claims and that the requested accommodations required a factual assessment.
“whether a particular type of accommodation is reasonable is commonly a contextual and fact-specific inquiry.”
Procedural preferences
In Reinhardt v. Guidehouse, she compelled arbitration of the employment claims under the parties’ agreement and stayed the court case pending completion of arbitration.
“Accordingly, this case will be stayed pending completion of arbitration.”
In In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, she denied certification for interlocutory appeal and reconsideration after finding the defendants had misstated her summary-judgment holdings and repeated arguments already decided.
“this Court DENIES Defendants’ [617] Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal and [618] Motion for Reconsideration”
In one long-running class case, she required evidence of systemic compliance problems before allowing new discovery to enforce a judgment; isolated mistakes and slower progress were insufficient on that record.
“when assessing Hilton’s compliance with the judgment, ‘the Court is looking for systemic problems or failures,’ not isolated mistakes or instances of less-than-ideal performance.”
In Juselis v. Arlington Management Employees, Judge Kollar-Kotelly found no personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia but transferred the employment case to Maryland rather than dismissing it. Transfer allowed a possible merits decision without forcing a filing that might face a limitations defense.
“Rather than dismiss Juselis’s action, however, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer the action to the District of Maryland, where both Manos and Arlington are domiciled for purposes of personal jurisdiction.”
In the AFGE suit against the EEOC, Kollar-Kotelly denied a stay of limited discovery because the parties disputed whether the challenged policy existed, and that discovery could inform jurisdictional review.
“limited discovery can help serve a similar role in assisting the Court’s jurisdictional analysis.”
In Lambert v. International Union of Bricklayers, she allowed a proposed Section 1981 race claim but denied leave to add NLRA claims because they could not survive dismissal in that court.
“Ms. Lambert’s proposed NLRA claims would not withstand a motion to dismiss, and the Court shall deny leave to amend to add these claims.”
Cautions
In Joshua M. Ambush, LLC v. Rusnak, Kollar-Kotelly dismissed a petition to vacate an arbitration award without prejudice. The same parties and award were already before the District of Maryland, and she found judicial economy and equitable considerations favored the earlier-filed proceeding.
“Respondent’s [4] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court shall GRANT the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend and DENY AS MOOT the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court shall GRANT the Plaintiffs' Motion and DENY the Defendant's Cross-Motion.”
“the Court shall GRANT Defendant's [14] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff's [10] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
“The Court will treat the defendant's motion as conceded and will enter judgment in the defendant's favor.”
“Court shall GRANT Defendants’ [20] Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint and Dismiss the Action with Prejudice and DENY Plaintiff’s [21] Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc.”
“Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.”
“Upon consideration of the briefing, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record, the Court shall GRANT the Motion to Dismiss.”
“the Court shall DENY the Defendant’s [19] Motion to Strike, GRANT Ms. Brown’s [20] Motion for Leave to Amend”
“Respondent’s [4] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“the Court shall DENY Defendants' [42] motion to stay their deadline to file the administrative record.”
“Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled recent assignments (filed 2026, all pending) are heavy on FOIA (895, Defending Rights & Dissent v. State, FIRE v. DHS, Judicial Watch v. DHS, Williams v. DoD), ANTITRUST (410, United States v. Taiheiyo Cement Corp.; she also has the In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust MDL and historically United States v. Microsoft), IMMIGRATION (465, Saeed/Chuang/Cai v. Mullin), APA/agency review (899), ERISA (791, IAM National Pension Fund v. Darling Ingredients), copyright (Strike 3 Holdings), and arbitration (896).
- This is a qualitative character sample, NOT a counted nature-of-suit distribution.
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 | 60 |
| 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 | 166 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 60 | 166 |
| Sep 2025 | 74 | 165 |
| Mar 2025 | 58 | 152 |
| Sep 2024 | 66 | 146 |
| Mar 2024 | 66 | 136 |
| Sep 2023 | 44 | 137 |
| Mar 2023 | 34 | 125 |
| Sep 2022 | 19 | 127 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 127 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 121 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 120 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 125 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Kollar-Kotelly: 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 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 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 Kollar-Kotelly with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kollar-Kotelly's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace