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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to remand N = 3 |
Granted: 3 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Sanctions N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”