Emmet G. Sullivan
How Judge Sullivan rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sullivan
Emmet G. Sullivan is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Sullivan received a commission on June 16, 1994. Judge Sullivan assumed senior status on April 3, 2021.
Judge Sullivan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Sullivan'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 Sullivan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Texas Children’s Hospital’s challenge to FAQ 33, he granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and permanently enjoined enforcement of that agency guidance.
“ORDERED that plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing, applying, or implementing FAQ 33”
In Christian’s Uber case, he compelled arbitration, denied dismissal, and stayed the action pending arbitration.
“the Court GRANTS Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 18; DENIES Uber’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18; and STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.”
Procedural preferences
In Boser’s case, he declined to consider material outside the pleadings or convert the dismissal motion to summary judgment before discovery.
“summary judgment is ordinarily appropriate only after the plaintiff has been given an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. ... the Court will not consider ‘any matters outside of the pleadings’ and will not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
In Buitrago’s case, he treated the District’s statement of facts as undisputed because the plaintiff did not address them.
“Mr. Buitrago fails to address any of the facts the District offers in its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. ... the Court considers Defendant’s statement of material facts undisputed”
In Andrews’s prolonged case, he ended the proceedings after describing the delay as inexcusable.
“This inexcusably prolonged case ends now.”
In a case with an overdue answer, the court rejected a request to stay deadlines when the defendant had not moved for an extension under Rule 6(b). Counsel seeking relief after a missed response deadline should file the proper motion and support excusable neglect.
“Defendant has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) because he has not filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the Complaint.”
Cautions
In Fleming’s closed civil case, he denied her Rule 60(d)(1) motion because it was filed as a motion rather than a separate action and renewed arguments that had already been rejected.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Fleming’s Rule 60(d)(1) Motion.”
A defendant's motion to compel arbitration can succeed even on tragic facts: in a wrongful-death case arising from a fatal Uber ride he enforced the clickwrap arbitration agreement and delegation clause, sending the dispute out of court despite the plaintiffs' unconscionability and arbitrability challenges.
“the Court GRANTS Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, ECF No. 25, is DENIED”
“FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing, applying, or implementing FAQ 33”
“the Court GRANTS Bacardi’s Motion to Dismiss Cubaexport’s Counterclaim, see ECF No. 156.”
“the Court GRANTS Uber’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 18; DENIES Uber’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18; and STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.”
“DENIES Uber’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18; and STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court will deny the defendant’s motion without prejudice and dismiss this action.”
“the Court will grant the defendant’s motion as conceded and dismiss this action.”
“the Court DENIES without prejudice the Motion to Dismiss.”
“the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 9; and GRANTS Mr. Lapotsky’s request to take discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d).”
“GRANTS Mr. Lapotsky’s request to take discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d).”
“Defendants’ motion will be denied, and this case will be dismissed instead. ... the Court will dismiss this action because no actual controversy exists.”
“the Court hereby DENIES Ms. Fleming’s motions.”
Employment-discrimination suit in which the court had previously granted the defendant summary judgment on all but one Rehabilitation Act claim. The surviving claim then stalled: the plaintiff never filed her promised motion for reconsideration, and the case sat inactive for nearly two years. The court dismissed the remaining claim sua sponte under its inherent power and Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This order did not resolve a party motion. Grounding quote below.
“the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9; and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed civil opinions span federal-agency review, public-records disputes, employment discrimination, immigration delay, education-disability appeals, employee benefits, securities enforcement, arbitration, trademark litigation, and local tort claims.
- Many matters name the United States or a federal agency or officer as defendant, while the commercial and local-government cases provide a broader posture mix.
- The record also includes preliminary-injunction rulings and settlement enforcement, but does not attempt to represent every criminal or emergency matter handled by the judge.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 29 | 26 |
| Mar 2023 | 37 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 59 | 26 |
| Mar 2022 | 64 | 29 |
| Sep 2021 | 62 | 30 |
| Mar 2021 | 53 | 28 |
| Sep 2020 | 25 | 19 |
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 Sullivan: 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 Sullivan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sullivan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sullivan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace