Christine P. O'Hearn
How Judge O'Hearn rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge O'Hearn
Christine Patricia O'Hearn is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge O'Hearn received a commission on October 22, 2021.
Judge O'Hearn's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge O'Hearn, 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
Filing
Mail two courtesy copies of motion papers over 50 pages to chambers within seven days of ECF filing.
“If electronically filed documents exceed fifty (50) pages, two courtesy copies of the electronically filed/ECF stamped motion papers shall be mailed to Chambers within seven (7) days the papers are filed on ECF.”
Motions
Before the listed dismissal, remand, venue, arbitration, and pleading motions, request a pre-motion conference in a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages.
“a party must submit a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, requesting a pre-motion 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 O'Hearn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gligor v. Alley Cat Allies, O’Hearn granted summary judgment on a whistleblower retaliation claim. She found a nearly four month gap between the alleged protected activity and termination insufficient by itself to establish causation, and the record did not show a pattern of antagonism or pretext.
“This nearly four-month gap is far too long to support a prima facie case without more.”
In the Samsung data-breach litigation, O'Hearn found the plaintiffs had not alleged an injury traceable to the exposure of information that was largely public or insufficiently sensitive to enable identity theft.
“not every data breach results in an injury especially, here, when much of the information stolen is already public and/or not sensitive enough to give rise to identity theft.”
Procedural preferences
In Jonuzi v. Servis One, O'Hearn denied a motion to strike the complaint over alleged discovery failures because the record did not establish prejudice or bad faith warranting that severe sanction.
“the failure to do so in this case does not warrant such a severe sanction as striking the entire Complaint at this time and on this record.”
In Jonuzi v. Servis One, O'Hearn denied an alternative summary judgment request as premature because discovery had not closed, and allowed refiling after it did.
“Defendant may refile its motion for summary judgment at the close of all discovery.”
After four opportunities to plead, including with counsel, she declined another amendment and dismissed the municipality from the case with prejudice.
“Plaintiff has now had four opportunities to plead his case, including with the benefit of counsel.”
Cautions
In In re Samsung Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, O’Hearn dismissed the fourth amended complaint with prejudice after finding the plaintiffs still had not established Article III standing. She declined further amendment after multiple prior opportunities to cure the defect.
“Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
In a prisoner's COVID-19 suit, O'Hearn granted summary judgment on PLRA exhaustion grounds because the prisoner filed no grievance about his claims and did not contest the evidence of nonexhaustion.
“As the undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff did not file a grievance regarding his claims, the Court finds that he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
A federal conviction challenge did not fit Section 2241’s savings clause where Section 2255 was available in the sentencing court. She dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without reaching the double-jeopardy merits.
“Here, § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective to raise Petitioner’s double jeopardy challenges.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 40), is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 145), is GRANTED as to summary judgment.”
“Lead Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Extrinsic Evidence or in the Alternative Defer or Deny Defendants' Motion Without Prejudice, (ECF No. 152), is DENIED”
“the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny his motion to dismiss as moot.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (ECF No. 161). Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations is DENIED as moot. (ECF. No. 163).”
“the failure to do so in this case does not warrant such a severe sanction as striking the entire Complaint at this time and on this record... Defendant's Motion to Strike the Complaint is denied.”
“complete discovery has not yet closed and for this reason, Defendant's request for an entry of summary judgment is premature. Defendant may refile its motion for summary judgment at the close of all discovery.”
“In short, Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) is unlawful under the INA and violates his procedural due process rights. ... Accordingly, the Court will order Petitioner's immediate release and permanently enjoin Respondents from re-detaining him under § 1225.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismiss this case without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“The Petition dated January 16, 2026 and filed with the Court on January 16, 2026 is hereby WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (as recommended by Probation).”
“The Court thereafter issued its ruling on the record, denying the Government’s request for commitment and explaining that a written opinion would follow.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
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 | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 20 |
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 O'Hearn: 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 O'Hearn with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge O'Hearn, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge O'Hearn's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace