Brian R. Martinotti
How Judge Martinotti rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Martinotti
Brian R. Martinotti is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Martinotti received a commission on July 11, 2016.
Judge Martinotti's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Martinotti, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Submit courtesy copies only for sealed documents.
“Courtesy Copies: Required for SEALED documents ONLY. No other courtesy copies should be submitted.”
Motions
Before specified Rule 12, arbitration, remand, or venue motions, file a pre-motion conference letter of no more than three single-spaced pages.
“before bringing a motion to dismiss, motion to compel arbitration, motion for a more definite statement, motion to remand, motion for change of venue, or motion for judgment on the pleadings, a party must submit a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, requesting a pre-motion conference.”
Motions
Respond to a pre-motion conference letter within seven days, in no more than three single-spaced pages.
“Within seven (7) days after receipt of this letter, all adversaries must submit a written response, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages.”
Trial
Submit joint jury trial materials 14 days before trial.
“Fourteen days prior to a scheduled jury trial, parties shall meet and confer and submit to the Court joint proposed:”
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 Martinotti decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Atlantic Spine Center, LLC v. Deloitte, Martinotti denied a renewed motion to dismiss after the provider added benchmark fee allegations, holding that the amount owed was a factual question beyond the pleading stage.
“What exactly Deloitte owes, if anything, is a question of fact not properly addressed on a motion to dismiss.”
Procedural preferences
In the Coinbase securities litigation, Martinotti denied reconsideration because the defendants offered more detailed arguments that they could have raised in their original dismissal motion.
“new arguments cannot serve as a basis for the Court's reconsideration of its prior [Order], nor can Defendants revive [their] previous motion to dismiss with a more detailed argument that was not raised in the first instance.”
In New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers v. Mazda, Martinotti dismissed the complaint on his own initiative because it pleaded remedies as standalone causes of action, and gave the plaintiff thirty days to amend.
“Though neither party has raised this pleading deficiency, a district court might, sua sponte, raise the issue of the deficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), so long as the plaintiff is accorded an opportunity to respond.”
Cautions
In Wierzbicki v. City of Jersey City, Martinotti dismissed the municipal-liability claim without prejudice because its policy and custom allegations merely recited the elements without supporting facts.
“Wierzbicki's allegations are completely conclusory and, at best, merely recite the elements necessary to establish a Monell claim. The Complaint is devoid of any facts demonstrating a policy or practice that excessive force, racial bias, or negligent supervision was so pervasive and well settled as to constitute a custom under Monell.”
Construes removal statutes strictly against removal; a state-court defendant invoking the civil-rights removal provision (28 U.S.C. 1443) must show both a federal right framed in terms of racial equality and a state-law bar to enforcing it, or the case is remanded.
“removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause appearing, Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 89) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause having been shown, Deloitte's Motion to Dismiss Atlantic Spine's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice.”
“the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... the Section 1983 and NJCRA claims are dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant DOC ... these claims are dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Johnson.”
“Because NJCAR's Complaint is dismissed, its Motion for Summary Judgment and Mazda's Motion to Dismiss are DENIED as moot.”
“Mazda's Motion to Dismiss and NJCAR's Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, ARA's Motion to Remand GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Special Civil Part, Middlesex County.”
“For the foregoing reasons Du Jour's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED and the October 21, 2025 Order (ECF No. 23) dismissing the Amended Complaint is VACATED.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (ECF No. 166) is GRANTED as recommended in the R&Rs, and resolution of the temporal scope issue is DEFERRED to the class certification stage.”
“For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause having been shown, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons set forth above, and for good cause having been shown, Defendants’ motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 35; 36) are DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED”
“Defendants' alternative Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED”
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 | 1,891 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1,891 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1,802 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1,316 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 1,247 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 697 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 327 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 40 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 105 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 178 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 407 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 248 |
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 Martinotti: 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 Martinotti with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Martinotti, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Martinotti's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace