Anuraag Hari Singhal
How Judge Singhal rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Singhal
Anuraag Hari Singhal is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Singhal received a commission on December 20, 2019.
Judge Singhal's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Singhal'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 Singhal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
A standard protective order may be adopted over objections when it facilitates production of sensitive material; unrelated complaints about whether discovery has been produced belong in separate disputes.
“The proposed protective order will actually expedite discovery, providing the parties necessary assurance before they turn over sensitive and private documents.”
A prior state-court resolution can foreclose a later federal suit when the identical issue was actually litigated, necessary to judgment, and fully contested; a pending appeal does not suspend that preclusive effect.
“Because Plaintiffs’ one claim is collaterally estopped, the Court grants summary judgment.”
Cautions
A litigant's financial condition may affect collection but does not defeat legal entitlement to a fee award when the underlying federal litigation was unreasonable.
“Although unfortunate, inability to pay is not an argument for why Defendants are not legally entitled to their fees. This argument goes to collection, not to the award of fees.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]) and Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [60]) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]) is DENIED as to Officer Termaat in Count I and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE [60]) is GRANTED as to Officer Termaat in Count I.”
“For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [93]) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DE [70]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Counts 1 through 5 are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. ... The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report & Recommendation (DE [278]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED IN WHOLE. Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (DE [226]) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (DE [9]) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DE [8]) is GRANTED, under the terms set forth below:”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Report and Recommendation (DE [167]) of the Magistrate Judge is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant Daniel S. Vacanti's Counterclaim (DE [129]) is DENIED.”
“The D. Vacanti Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [107]) and A. Vacanti Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [113]) are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motions are GRANTED as to Count I (Copyright Infringement), but are otherwise denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE [110]) is DENIED, except as to Affirmative Defenses 9, 16, 18, 26, 27, and 28, which Defendants forfeited.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count II (Rescission) (DE [215]) is GRANTED. Count II of the Amended Complaint (DE [170) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (DE [59]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [177]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This case will proceed to trial on Count I: Breach of Contract as limited by this Order.”
“Plaintiffs' Dismissal Motion (DE [40]) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 145 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 8.0 days (N = 46).
The reviewed 2020-2022 matters include civil-rights, fair-housing, disability-access, consumer-credit, and contract cases, alongside a substantial criminal caseload. Judge Singhal authors his dispositive rulings and often refers discovery and sanctions matters to a magistrate judge. This provides descriptive context rather than a caseload-wide rate.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Singhal: 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 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 848 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,287 | 3.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 45 | 17.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,755 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 20,408 | 0 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,287 | 3.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 8,536 | 3.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,657 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,471 | 3.7 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 Singhal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Singhal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Singhal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace