Paul James Barbadoro
How Judge Barbadoro rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barbadoro
Paul J. Barbadoro is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Barbadoro received a commission on October 9, 1992. Judge Barbadoro assumed senior status on March 1, 2021.
Judge Barbadoro's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Barbadoro's own (checked October 9, 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 9, 2026).
How Judge Barbadoro decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In SEC v. LBRY, Barbadoro granted judgment on the pleadings against LBRY’s selective-enforcement defense. LBRY had acknowledged SEC actions against other digital-currency creators and had not explained why those actions should be treated as meaningfully different.
“Accordingly, LBRY’s admission that the SEC has been pursuing enforcement actions against multiple other digital currency creators dooms its selective enforcement defense.”
In Rubiera Cruz v. Brackett, Barbadoro denied the government’s motion to dismiss an immigration detention petition as moot. The petitioner had rejected an offer of a bond hearing and still sought immediate release, so the court found a live controversy.
“Accordingly, an actual controversy over Rubiera Cruz’s rights remains, and his case is not moot.”
In a copyright pleading dispute, he allowed a claim against a company officer to proceed on allegations of supervisory control and direct financial benefit, without requiring veil piercing.
“The plaintiffs do not need to pierce the corporate veil to hold Tousley personally liable for copyright infringement because they have pleaded sufficient facts as to both elements of their vicarious-liability claim.”
Procedural preferences
In Cohen v. Boston Scientific, Barbadoro extended the deadline to serve defendant Mouchati and denied his dismissal motion. He found excusable neglect in the circumstances, including Mouchati’s participation in the suit, lack of prejudice, and the plaintiff’s good faith.
“Here, the relevant circumstances warrant an extension of the service deadline and qualify as excusable neglect.”
In Randolph v. Macy’s, Barbadoro granted Macy’s motion to compel arbitration. He found the agreement did not require Macy’s, as respondent, to start arbitration by written demand and that it moved promptly after the state administrative proceedings closed.
“Because Macy’s promptly filed its motion to compel arbitration after it brought proceedings before the Commission to a close by removing Randolph’s complaint to state court, it cannot be faulted for failing to act sooner.”
Cautions
In Staples v. NH State Prison, Barbadoro dismissed vague retaliation allegations against several prison officials while allowing claims against two officers to proceed where the complaint described their alleged conduct with sufficient detail.
“This claim is simply too vague to support a retaliation claim against any other defendants.”
In a foster care class action, Barbadoro granted partial summary judgment on two Olmstead elements while reserving the third for more briefing or trial.
“That element will require subsequent briefing or resolution at trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The School District's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 6) is denied.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, I grant defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 31).”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is granted.”
“For the reasons discussed above, I grant defendants' motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 25, 26).”
“The plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.”
“I grant in part and deny in part defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 38) and Staples' response (Doc. No. 40).”
“Mouchati's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 36) is denied and Cohen's motion for an extension of time to complete service (Doc. No. 42) is granted.”
“The SEC's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to LBRY's affirmative defense (Doc. No. 20) is granted.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the government's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, Macy's motion to compel arbitration, Doc. 11, is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Travelers' motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) is denied.”
“For the reasons explained above, I grant the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 66-1.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets show a mix of general civil litigation (contract, insurance-coverage, tort, ERISA, and social-security appeals) alongside a recurring cluster of prisoner and immigration-detention habeas petitions, several referred to and jointly disposed of with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 3 |
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 New Hampshire, not for Judge Barbadoro: 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 | 672 | 33 months |
| Closed with no court action | 89 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 41.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 74 | 15.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 672 | 33 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,499 | 49.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 529 | 23.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 313 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 335 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 418 | 10.2 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 Barbadoro with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barbadoro, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barbadoro's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace