Andre M. Espinosa
How Judge Espinosa rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Espinosa
Andre M. Espinosa was appointed a United States magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey on March 24, 2021. Before joining the bench, he served as a federal prosecutor and practiced civil litigation at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Judge Espinosa's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Espinosa, 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
Contacting chambers
File communications in CM/ECF; call chambers only about administration unless the court directs otherwise.
“All communications to the Court shall be in writing via CM/ECF.”
Motions
Seek leave before filing formal motions, subject to the order’s stated exceptions.
“formal motions shall not be filed without prior leave from this Court.”
Conferences
Request a conference adjournment at least five business days before the conference.
“Adjournment requests must be made no later than five business days before the scheduled conference.”
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).
- Second Amended Standing Order 2026-02: In Re Increase in Immigration-Related Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking Emergent Relief ↗
- Standing Order 2025-05: IN RE Procedures for Access to and Service of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 2025-04: IN RE "Schedule A" Cases ↗
- Standing Order 2024-03: In re: Amendment to Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents and Guidance for Same ↗
- Standing Order 2024-02: Electronic Signatures ↗
How Judge Espinosa decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mansour v. City of Jersey City, he recommended remand because the defendants failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims.
“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.”
In Lorenzo-Noda v. Kazak, he denied both sides' summary judgment motions because the drivers gave conflicting accounts of the collision and disputed facts prevented judgment on negligence and causation.
“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.”
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 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 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 New Jersey, not for Judge Espinosa: 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 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 370 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,266 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2,317 | 14.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 36.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,921 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,378 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,053 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,064 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 9,031 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 10,590 | 9 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 Espinosa with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Espinosa, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Espinosa's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace