Julia Eleanor Kobick
How Judge Kobick rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kobick
Julia Eleanor Kobick is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kobick received a commission on November 13, 2023.
Judge Kobick's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kobick, 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
Before a dispositive motion, meaningfully confer; for summary judgment, place each response directly under the corresponding asserted fact in one document.
“Parties should meaningfully confer before filing dispositive motions. For summary judgment motions, the non-moving party should note their response to the moving party's concise statement of material facts under each fact asserted by the moving party, so that the fact and response is contained in one document.”
Motions
Seek leave at the hearing before filing a post-argument brief; later requests are rarely granted.
“If a topic comes up at the hearing that is not fully addressed in the parties' briefs, I will often grant leave for the parties to file short supplemental briefs after the hearing. But I rarely grant requests to file post-argument briefs where leave was not orally granted at the hearing.”
Trial
Premark stipulated exhibits.
“Stipulated exhibits should be pre-marked.”
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 Kobick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Orr v. Trump, Kobick found the plaintiffs substantially likely to succeed on their equal-protection claim against the passport sex-marker policy. She granted preliminary relief for the named plaintiffs, rather than issuing universal relief.
“The plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim.”
In Herren, Kobick granted the officers summary judgment on the battery claim because the record did not show unreasonable force in handcuffing the plaintiff during an authorized arrest.
“there is no evidence that Officer Desmarais’s use of handcuffs was unreasonable.”
In ACE American Insurance, Kobick found coverage under the compulsory bodily injury form even though the separate covered autos form excluded auto business use.
“Unlike the Covered Autos sub-policy, there is no auto business exception to the Compulsory Bodily Injury sub-policy.”
In Vaudo, Kobick denied a school placement injunction after the parent did not dispute that the new school could provide every service in the child’s educational plan.
“Vaudo has never disputed that R.W. would retain access at Beachmont to all the services specified in her IEP and that Beachmont can fully implement her IEP.”
Procedural preferences
In DS Advanced Enterprises v. Ledvance, Kobick denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because infringement was plausibly alleged. She left the disputed patent-claim requirement concerning simultaneous use of components for a claim-construction hearing.
“Determining whether the patent claim requires the junction box and retrofit clips to be in simultaneous use is a question better answered at the claim construction hearing.”
In Fitzgerald, Kobick declined to decide a dismissal motion using a cryptocurrency issuer’s terms that were not incorporated into the amended complaint.
“Those Terms, however, are not incorporated by reference into the amended complaint.”
Cautions
In the Apellis securities suit, Kobick denied a second amendment after the plaintiffs gave no proposed new facts or reason another amendment was warranted.
“The plaintiffs fail to identify, however, any additional factual allegations that they would include in a potential second amended complaint. Nor do they explain why justice otherwise requires amendment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Agency Action and for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF 29, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. A separate order will issue memorializing the preliminary injunction entered by the Court.”
“the defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF 80, is GRANTED. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend.”
“the City's motion to dismiss, ECF 12, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. Count V of the complaint is dismissed. Counts I through IV are REMANDED to Middlesex Superior Court.”
“Stop & Shop's partial motion to dismiss, ECF 29, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count I of the amended complaint, alleging unjust enrichment, is DISMISSED. Williams' request for injunctive relief remains.”
“DS Advanced's motion to amend its complaint, ECF 90, is GRANTED”
“Ledvance's motion to dismiss, ECF 75, is DENIED.”
“the City of Fall River's motion for summary judgment, ECF 44, ... are GRANTED.”
“the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF 46, are GRANTED.”
“the defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF 13, is GRANTED. Clark's Motion to Object, ECF 10; Motion for Recusal, ECF 16; and Motion for Obstruction of Justice, ECF 28, are DENIED.”
Sua sponte screening of a pro se in forma pauperis complaint alleging constitutional violations arising from two traffic stops and arrests. The judge dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B), holding the state and its insurer were immune or not proper section 1983 defendants and that the pleaded facts showed probable cause for both stops, but allowed the plaintiff to amend narrowly on the excessive-force claim. “This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Avelin may file an amended complaint by April 21, 2026 that provides sufficient factual detail to assert a viable Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force.”
“the defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF 16, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Massachusetts Equal Pay Act claim (Count I), state and federal sex discrimination claims (Counts III and VI), and sex-based hostile work environment claim (Count IV) are DISMISSED.”
“Bristol Myers Squibb's motion to dismiss, ECF 30, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED as to Hakuzimana's claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and as to his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is otherwise GRANTED.”
“Ivory Systems, Inc.'s motion for joinder, ECF 45, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Its motion to dismiss, ECF 46, is also GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED as to Hakuzimana's claim for promissory estoppel. It is otherwise GRANTED.”
“Gratuity's special motion to dismiss Toast's counterclaims I and II pursuant to the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, ECF 141, is DENIED.”
“Olivet's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF 309, [is] DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Sterilite's motion for attorney's fees, ECF 307, [is] DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 53 days (N = 8).
The reviewed dockets include civil-rights, wage-and-hour, contract and stay matters. This targeted set does not establish a caseload mix.
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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
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 Kobick: 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 Kobick with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kobick, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kobick's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace