Andre M. Espinosa
How Judge Espinosa decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Strongly pro-remand across multiple removal theories: he holds the removing party to a 'heavy burden' and resolves doubts in favor of remand, whether removal rests on bankruptcy-relatedness (28 U.S.C. 1452(b)), federal-question/artful-pleading, or LMRA Section 301 complete preemption (state LAD/CEPA claims that do not depend on interpreting a CBA are not preempted).
“this Court concludes that Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction ... this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiffs' motion to remand.”
On Rule 56 he applies textbook summary-judgment discipline even when one side is pro se: he refuses to weigh credibility or resolve the parties' conflicting accounts, excludes a police crash report as inadmissible hearsay (FRE 802) and a property-damage settlement under FRE 408, and construes a pro se non-movant's proffered trial testimony liberally to defeat the motion.
“attempting to determine the quanta of those parties' relative negligence or the proximate cause of the accident necessarily requires the Court to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations, a process forbidden when deciding a motion for summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On July 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the case be remanded to state court. ... ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Espinosa's R&R (ECF No. 18) is adopted; ... Valley National Bank's motion to remand ... is GRANTED.”
“the R&R of Judge Espinosa dated May 16, 2025, (ECF No. 152), is ADOPTED ... and Plaintiffs motions for sanctions against Defendants (ECF Nos. 146, 151) are GRANTED; ... Defendants' answer (ECF No. 120) is stricken and Plaintiff may seek entry of default and default judgment.”
“this Court concludes that Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction ... this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiffs' motion to remand [D.E. 3].”
“[the Court] cannot conclude that Defendants' attempt to remove was so objectively unreasonable as to warrant the imposition of costs and fees.”
“On April 25, 2024, the Honorable Andre M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and deny Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs. ... ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (D.E. No. 7) is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs (D.E. No. 7) is DENIED.”
“the Court cannot conclude the evidence is so one-sided as to both negligence and causation that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on his claim. ... their motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment must also be denied. ... The disputed issues, as discussed above, preclude summary judgment in his favor.”
“ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), Plaintiffs' motion to compel demonstrative evidence [D.E. 27] is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Kintock's motion to vacate default and for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint [D.E. 26] is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Mason's motion to vacate default [D.E. 28] is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to ‘preserve and enforce’ default against Mason ... is DENIED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for entry of default nunc pro tunc as to Quann [D.E. 30] is DENIED”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct early discovery [D.E. 31] is DENIED.”
“Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) entered on September 26, 2023, by Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa (‘Judge Espinosa’), (D.E. 23), recommending dismissal of the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) ... ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Espinosa, (D.E. 23), is ADOPTED ... and this matter is hereby DISMISSED as to CCCF for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.”
“On April 26, 2023, the Honorable Andre M. Espinosa, U.S.M.J. issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this action be remanded, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, due to Plaintiff's lack of Article III standing to assert his FDCPA claim and the Court's consequent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... ORDERED that this Court ADOPTS Judge Espinosa's Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 15) ... ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”
“the Hon. Andre M. Espinosa, U.S. Magistrate Judge, to whom the matter was transferred, carefully analyzed the case and filed a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) that the case be dismissed because Mr. Soto is not an attorney and so may not represent Ministerio Mundial Fuente De Bendicion, Inc., because Ministerio Mundial Fuente De Bendicion has not hired an attorney or prosecuted this action, and because it does not appear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged claims in any event ... ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (DE 14) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED ... ORDERED that the case is dismissed.”
“This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge André Espinosa's Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), issued on March 28, 2024, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion and remand this matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). ... ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF 9) is GRANTED ... ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Espinosa's March 28, 2024, R&R.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint [D.E. 92] is DENIED.”
Put Judge Espinosa's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Espinosa actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Espinosa's own signed orders and cites them.