Angel Kelley
How Judge Kelley rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kelley
Angel Kelley is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kelley received a commission on September 15, 2021.
Judge Kelley's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kelley, 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.
- Judicial Forum Survey ↗
- Standing Order – Scheduling and Sample Scheduling Order ↗
- Standing Order – General Motion Practice ↗
Key rules
Conferences
In the proposed schedule, state whether the parties consent to trial before a magistrate judge.
“Parties should address the topics listed in the Court’s standing order regarding scheduling practices. A sample scheduling order is attached thereto. In addition to proposed dates for discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, the parties should indicate whether they consent to trial by magistrate judge.”
Trial
File proposed voir dire, verdict forms, and jury instructions on the docket and send editable Word versions to the courtroom clerk.
“In addition to filing these documents on the docket, parties should send editable Word versions to the courtroom clerk.”
Trial
Courtesy copies of trial exhibits are due by the first trial day unless the court requests otherwise.
“Courtesy copies of trial exhibits are due no later than the first day of trial unless the Court requests otherwise.”
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 Kelley decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ERISA suit about practices across multiple retirement plans, she found the named plaintiff had standing to challenge shared practices despite not participating in one plan.
“Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engage in uniform practices across the Plans that violate ERISA. Plaintiff has standing to challenge these uniform practices, even though he was not a participant in the SRAP.”
In a contract dispute over a premium test, she denied Sun Life’s summary-judgment motion because the extrinsic evidence left a genuine dispute about the test’s meaning.
“Viewing the extrinsic evidence in the light most favorable to Genesett, there exists a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the correct interpretation of the premium test. Accordingly, this Court cannot grant Sun Life’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
In a suit over Nantucket rental-car licenses, she dismissed a Sherman Act Section 1 claim because the complaint did not plausibly allege an agreement between the town and incumbent agencies.
“In sum, none of Becky’s allegations plausibly suggest an agreement between the Town and incumbent agencies.”
In a drug-conspiracy prosecution, she excluded a proposed expert on courier roles after finding his opinions relied on passive observation without reliable methodology or case-specific analysis.
“His curriculum vitae reflects career experience in court administration, not scientific or technical analysis of criminal networks.”
In the DentaQuest data incident litigation, Kelley appointed the interim class counsel team supported by most plaintiffs and credited the work that team had already done to prepare the case.
“First, the Siegel Team is supported by the vast majority of the plaintiffs. Second, the Siegel Team has already contributed substantially to the litigation”
Procedural preferences
In a dispute over Nantucket rental-car licenses, she denied a preliminary injunction after finding the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
“Plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, which essentially ends the inquiry.”
In a product-liability suit, she found purposeful availment absent for one defendant and declined to reach the reasonableness factors for personal jurisdiction.
“As we have found that jurisdiction over Monarch does not meet the ‘purposeful availment’ prong, the Court declines to address the reasonableness factors.”
In Harris, she required the parties to file a motion explaining their request before entering a proposed protective order.
“However, there is no motion explaining the parties’ request or the reasons therefore.”
In a suit challenging state child-custody proceedings, she applied Younger abstention after finding that the complaint challenged a state-initiated proceeding.
“Because the Next Friends are challenging a state-initiated custody proceeding, they are challenging a proceeding that implicates Younger abstention.”
Cautions
In an employment suit, she granted the employer summary judgment on FMLA retaliation after finding insufficient evidence linking the employee’s withdrawn leave request to his termination.
“Harris must demonstrate that those responsible for his termination were aware of his protected activity, as National Grid cannot be motivated to retaliate against an action of which it was unaware.”
In a former employee’s suit, she entered default judgment as a discovery sanction after the defendants missed repeated deadlines and failed to comply with an order compelling responses.
“Substantively, Defendants missed a total of seven discovery deadlines and extensions that had been either coordinated with or offered by Plaintiff, yet never once reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to request an extension before a deadline had passed, nor moved this Court for an extension of the pretrial schedule.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement [Dkt. 11] is DENIED.”
“Therefore, Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 74] is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 47] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' [Dkt. 9] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Parexel's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Dkt. 13].”
“The Defendants' unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 20] is GRANTED in full. Judgment shall enter for the defendants on all counts.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Monarch's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 68] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff has not made a colorable claim for jurisdiction or explained why jurisdiction would be found if discovery were permitted. ... Accordingly, jurisdictional discovery is unwarranted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend their Complaints [Dkt. 184] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Exhibit 1 of the Amended Complaint [Dkt. 45] is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is [Dkt. 43] is GRANTED.”
“Allen's special motion to dismiss Fuller's counterclaims [Dkt. 16] is DENIED.”
“Mr. Gillan's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. 15] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 52] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Dkt. 2] is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 20] is DENIED as moot.”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 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 District of Massachusetts, not for Judge Kelley: 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 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,095 | 3.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 881 | 7.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 676 | 17.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 30 | 34.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,682 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,439 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,756 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,222 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,582 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,391 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 4,438 | 23 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 Kelley with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kelley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kelley's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace